Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK

Cession

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that police action has been taken in Sibu, east of Kuching, against the free expression of opinion by those opposed to the cession of Sarawak; and whether he will take steps to ensure that orderly criticism and democratic rights are preserved for all citizens of this Colony.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The Governor of Sarawak has reported that certain anti-cession posters displayed in Sibu were removed by the police on 14th November. This was done by order of the local police chief on the ground that they would lead to inter-racial animosity and incidents, after reports had been received that strong feeling had been aroused by the display of these posters in the Chinese area. Many posters had also been affixed to Malay houses without permission and against the wishes of the owners, who asked the police to remove them. As regards the second part of the Question, I am as jealous of preserving democratic rights as my hon. Friend and will certainly take steps with the local authorities to prevent infringement if occasion arises.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the Minister say whether any of those who affixed the posters have been proceeded against or have been ill-treated in any way?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am unable to say that, but there had been previous incidents, and the Governor had already taken some action against those who were involved.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister assure the House that there is no impediment whatever to free expression of opinion in Sarawak against the proposals for cession?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no interference with civil liberty in any regard.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what authority an official circular was issued in Sarawak threatening with instant dismissal any Government servant associating himself with any activity designed to keep open the question of cession.

Mr. Creech Jones: The circular was issued by the Chief Secretary under the authority of the Governor, who was acting within his constitutional powers.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is the right hon. Gentleman clear that that answer is consistent with the answer he gave to Question No. 1 this afternoon?

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope it is consistent.

Mr. William Teeling: May I ask it that means that any official of any other British Colony who disapproves of the present Constitution there will have to resign? Is this rule being applied in other Colonies or only in Sarawak?

Mr. Creech Jones: Oh, no, Sir. His Majesty has a right, I think, to expect loyalty from his servants.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Tell that to the T.U.C.

Government Officials (Resignation)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the resignation, on or about 20th December, 1946, of 21 of the leading officials in the Sarawak Government; and who have replaced them.

Mr. Creech Jones: On 20th December a circular was issued, by the Governor's direction, requiring any member of the Sarawak Government Service who felt unable to serve that Government with the loyalty it is entitled and obliged to demand of its servants, to notify the authorities


accordingly by 31st December. The circular was sent to 2,509 Government servants, including 49 Europeans, 1,371 Malays, 426 Chinese and 456 Dyaks. My latest information is that notice of resignation has been received from 335 officials, of whom all but three were Malays. Of the 332 Malays who have resigned, some 90 per cent. live in one particular area where the influence of the Malay National Union is predominant. They submitted their resignations on printed forms supplied by the Malay National Union, and many of them informed their Departmental Heads privately that they were acting contrary to their real wishes because of pressure brought to bear on them, or their families, and fear of social or religious boycott. Those who have resigned will be granted special retirement terms. As regards the last part of the Question, the majority of the resignations do not take effect for three months. I have, as yet, no information about the arrangements for replacements, but I understand that no functional breakdown of any Government Department is anticipated.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that we have not yet seen the actual Deed of Cession, and that the matter remains open until finally decided by the Privy Council, is it right that these people should be forced to resign before the matter is finally decided? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these 21 people to whom I have referred were heads of Government Departments?

Mr. Creech Jones: If the hon. Member goes to the Library, he will see the Notice in regard to cession. Parliament has accepted as a fact the cession of Sarawak, and it was in the spirit of Parliamentary action that this line of action was taken by the Government.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what terms of compensation, if any, are offered to these persons?

Mr. Creech Jones: They are entitled to certain special retirement terms, but I have not the details here.

Mr. Anthony Brooke

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he made a statement on 2nd January denying the offer by his Department of a house to Mr. Anthony Brooke.

Mr. Creech Jones: The statement was made because Mr. Anthony Brooke's message to the Press in Singapore might have given the impression that the Colonial Office, or Colonial Government, had offered him a house and money in return for an undertaking not to interfere in the affairs of Sarawak.

Mr. Teeling: Is not the right hon. Gentleman completely aware that Mr. Brooke made no such suggestion whatever, but said that it was the original Sarawak Government which made that offer? The Minister will agree that they were in the same position as the Governments of Belgium and Holland, who were refugee Governments here at the time the house was required?

Mr. Creech Jones: For the information of the House, Mr. Brooke refused to disclose, when asked, the origin of the offer. I think it very important that my two predecessors should be protected against a charge of this kind, when it was not within their jurisdiction to intervene at all in such a matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Land (Quit Rent)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the system of holding land from the Sultans in the Malayan States on payment of a quit rent is to be retained, in view of the changes to be made in the Sultans' powers.

Mr. Creech Jones: The effect of the proposals which are being discussed and which have been published, would be to restore the position in this matter to approximately that which existed before the creation of the Malayan Union.

Mr. Reid: Am I to gather then, that public lands will not be vested in the Crown, as they are in most Colonies?

Mr. Creech Jones: The old position is restored.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Minister state that this quit rent does not in fact go to the Sultans but passes into the public revenues?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, that is the position.

Labour Ordinance

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that the labour ordinance in the Malayan Union and Singapore is now out of date, he will institute a redraft of this ordinance.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Governors of the Malayan Union and Singapore already have this matter in hand.

Allocation of Supplies, Singapore

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will instruct the Singapore Government to assist in the allocation of supplies to the co-operative society recently established in Singapore; and not to encourage the allocation of supplies to monopolistic combines such as the British Association of Straits Merchants.

Mr. Creech Jones: The British Association of Straits Merchants is not a monopolistic combine. It is a London association of old established merchants trading in Malaya with which a contract was made for the handling and clearance of certain relief supplies, ordered on Government account in the months preceding and immediately following the liberation of Malaya. Particulars of this contract, which will shortly lapse were given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) in a reply in this House on 31st July last. Under it, the association undertook to deliver a due proportion of these supplies free of commission to importers who were not among its members. The particular co-operative society to which my hon. Friend refers was only recently established but it has already been allocated supplies for distribution.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the fact that experience in Britain has shown that co-operative societies are one of the biggest monopolies, why should there be discrimination?

Commodity Prices. Singapore

Mr. Thomas Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the strong black market operating in Singapore, he will urge the adoption of a rationing system through the rice ration card for the distribution of textiles and other goods.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor informs me that so far from there being a strong black market in Singapore, price control is becoming increasingly effective and prices, particularly of textiles, have fallen steadily and substantially. The possibility of widening the rationing system to include other commodities was closely examined more than once last year when the shortages were most acute, but the conclusion was reached that in an area in which the different sections of the population have such different requirements and tastes, this would be unpopular and impracticable. Alternative methods, which have proved increasingly effective, were accordingly adopted.

Labour and Economic Conditions

Mr. T. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange that selected trades unionists from the Malayan Union and Singapore shall come to England in order that they may gain by training, observation and contact with the British trades union movement; and if he will invite a delegation of trades unionists and M.Ps. to go to Malaya to study labour and economic conditions there.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am naturally concerned that there should be a healthy trade union movement in the Malayan territories, and various steps have already been taken to this end. In the consideration of whatever further measures may be necessary I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestions which my hon. Friend has put forward.

Mr. Rankin: When they reach the end of England, can they also come to Scotland?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when they arrive they are given the opportunity of observing that some of the unions in this country are unable to control their members?

Tuberculosis

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of tuberculosis were reported in British Malaya in 1946; how many people were certified to have died from this disease during the same period; and what steps are being taken to deal with this menace.

Mr. Creech Jones: The information is not yet available, but I have asked the Governors of the Malayan Union and Singapore for a report, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it arrives.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the urgency of this matter, will my night hon. Friend also point out to the Governors that the terrible housing conditions in Malaya have had something to do with this question?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Development schemes are, of course, under way, and that aspect of the matter is receiving attention.

Legislative Council

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many public meetings were held by the electoral committee appointed by the governor of Singapore in April last to deal with the procedure for election of unofficial members of the Singapore Legislative Council; and what steps he will take to ensure that before effect is given to any of its recommendations all sections of opinion in the colony and, in particular, the political parties and trade unions will be consulted.

Mr. Creech Jones: On 24th of April, 1946, the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers announced that they wished to consult public opinion to the fullest extent possible, and that they would welcome any views or suggestions which any persons or bodies of persons in the Colony might have to make. Representations were to be submitted in writing before 31st May. Full publicity was given to this announcement in the local Press, and ample opportunity was thus given to all sections of opinion including political parties and trade unions, to express their views. The Committee's meetings were not public, but a representative of the Malayan Democratic Union attended one of the meetings and discussed with the Committee the memorandum which the Union had submitted.

Mr. Pritt: Do I understand that no public meetings were held?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. These were not public meetings. A committee sitting in private received the recommendations.

Constitution

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have

been, or are being, taken to implement the pledge that all sections of opinion will be consulted before any final decisions are taken in relation to the constitution of the Singapore Municipal Council, to citizenship of the Malayan Union, and to the constitution of the Malayan Union; what organisations have in fact been consulted; and whether he will undertake that no final decisions shall be reached on these matters until Parliament has the opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Rees - Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations in relation to the constitutional issue in British Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones: The few outstanding points to which I referred in the statement which I circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT on nth of December were quickly settled, and the proposals for the revision of the Constitution of the Malayan Union were published in Malaya on 24th December. The Governor then appointed a Committee, consisting mainly of influential representatives of the non-Malay communities, which has invited, on the widest possible basis, the views of communities, interests and individuals throughout the Peninsula. The report of this Committee will be submitted to the Governor, for consideration in the Advisory Council. His Majesty's Government will then again consider the matter, and at that stage, as I promised on nth of December, the House will be given the opportunity of commenting on the proposals as a whole. Meanwhile, copies of the proposals as published in Malaya have been placed in the Library of the House and I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement setting out their main features.
As regards the Singapore Municipality, proposals have been formulated by a Committee appointed by the Governor after all interested bodies and individuals had had full opportunity to express their views. The Committee's proposals have been published in Singapore, but I have not yet received the Governor's recommendations upon them.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman more clearly particularise the opportunity which will be given to this


House to express its views? Does he mean that there will be a full day's Debate, or what will happen?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not in a position to say that, but it will be my desire that the House should have the fullest opportunity of discussing these proposals.

Following is the statement:

I. Constitution

(a)The necessity for a strong Central Government is recognised, with authority in all matters of importance to the welfare and progress of the country as a whole, while the individuality of the component States and Settlements (which would retain certain functions, both in the field of administration and local legislation) is preserved. It is accordingly proposed that the present structure should be changed so that the nine Malay States and the British Settlements of Penang and Malacca may be grouped together under a representative central government and with certain powers retained in the States and Settlements, the association being called "The Federation of Malaya."
(b) The title of "Governor" should be replaced by that of "High Commissioner." The High Commissioner should have an Executive Council with administrative functions throughout Malaya in Federal matters.
(c) The central Legislative Council under the High Commissioner would have powers to legislate on all the most important subjects and would be composed of 14 officials, 11 unofficial representatives of the State and Settlement Councils (see (d)below) and 23 other unofficial who would in the early stages (i.e. until it becomes possible to establish a system of elections) to be nominated by the High Commissioner.
(d) There should be Legislatures in each State (with the name of "Council of State") and in the Settlements of Malacca and Penang, which would legislate on all matters not reserved to the central authority.
(e)In each State there should also be a State Executive Council presided over by His Highness the Ruler, with executive authority in a number of fields of local administration.

(f) There should be a conference of Rulers which would enable Their Highnesses the Rulers to be kept in touch with important problems affecting the Federation, to consult with each other, and to meet the High Commissioner at least three times a year.

Coconut Oil (Export Control)

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary for the Colonies why coconut oil produced in Malaya is subject to export control.

Mr. Creech Jones: Control over exports of coconut oil produced in Malaya is required in order to implement recommendations for the allocation of shipments made by the International Emergency Food Council, on which this country is represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on' constitutional changes in Mauritius.

Mr. Creech Jones: The proposed constitutional arrangements for Mauritius were made known to the Council of Government of the Colony on 29th of October last and I await the Governor's report on the outcome of the subsequent local deliberations regarding them. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Secretary of State expedite a report on this matter as three months have now passed since it was first raised?

Mr. Creech Jones: The matter is being considered locally. I will do what is possible, because I am anxious to get ahead with this Constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Terrorist Activities

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the military authorities in Palestine have, during the last 12 months, had all the powers they required in order to protect the lives of British subjects from terrorist activities.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Responsibility for the preservation of law and order in Palestine rests with the High Commissioner' as head of the Civil Government. In this he has the support of the military authorities on whom he can call for any assistance required. Close and effective cooperation has at all time been maintained between the civil and military authorities with a view to ensuring that everything possible is done to safeguard life and property in Palestine.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British subjects were murdered in Palestine in 1946; and how many of the culprits have been convicted.

Mr. Creech Jones: During 1946 the total number of British subjects murdered in Palestine was 73. Of these, 15 were members of the Palestine Police, 45 members of His Majesty's Forces and 13 were civilians. No culprits have been convicted.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that no culprits have been convicted?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not have been possible to convict culprits if more cooperation had been received from the' Jewish community in Palestine?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, that is the position. We have had difficulty in collecting exact information in regard to these most tragic incidents.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British subjects have been killed, wounded, or subjected to physical assault, by Jewish terrorists in Palestine since 1st August, 1945.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the High Commissioner for Palestine for the exact figures required, and I shall communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the High Commissioner for details of the convictions secured in respect of assaults and woundings, so that the House may know whether a better standard has been achieved in

regard to them than in regard to the murders, for which no convictions have yet been secured?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will see that the House is given as much information as possible about the wounding incidents.

Members' Visits

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange for those Members of this House, who wish to do so, to visit the British officials, police and troops in Palestine.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not sure what sort of arrangements the hon. and gallant Member has in mind; but I doubt whether officially sponsored visits would really be helpful at the present time. Moreover, I should be reluctant to add to the security commitments already carried by the Palestine Police.

Casualties

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total casualty rate in Palestine during 1946, indicating killed and wounded separately, and to which forces they were attached, or in the case of civilians, indicating how many were Jews and how many Arabs and whether armed or unarmed.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine for the information required and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Sir R. Glyn: In view of the importance of this House ascertaining the facts as a basis for debate, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to see that the answer is printed in HANSARD and made public?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will certainly see that that is done.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman also say how many capital sentences have been passed in connection with these outrages and how many have been carried into effect?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would like notice of that question

Flogged British Soldiers

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the persons who flogged British soldiers in


Palestine have been arrested; what punishment they received; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement concerning the flogging by Jewish terrorists of a British major and three non-commissioned officers.

Mr. Creech Jones: At half past seven on 29th December a British Army major was kidnapped from the hotel at Nathanya by a party of armed Jews, flogged with 18 strokes of the whip, and returned to the hotel. The same evening two British staff sergeants were abducted by a party of armed Jews at Tel Aviv and taken by car to the Zoological Gardens. Each was flogged with 18 strokes of the whip. Later that evening, five armed Jews entered a cafe; abducted the most senior officer present, a British staff sergeant, and flogged him with 18 strokes of a rope's end. He suffered severe bruises and abrasions and was admitted to hospital.
Responsibility for these floggings was accepted by the Irgun Zvai Leumi. They were evidently a reprisal for the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane passed by a Military Court on a 16 year old Jewish terrorist convicted of taking part in an armed robbery at the Ottoman Bank, Jaffa, on 13th December, when the manager and two Arab policemen were wounded. On the night of the flogging five Jews were fired on by a military patrol when the car in which they were travelling failed to stop. One of the occupants was wounded and has since died. The remaining four persons have been charged with illegal possession of arms. Although, in addition to firearms, a whip was found in the vehicle, there is no positive evidence to connect these five persons with the flogging incidents. I should inform the House that in a series of searches which were intensified as a result of these flogging incidents over 30 persons wanted by the police as suspected terrorists have been taken into custody.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether His Majesty's Government will take the most drastic steps to maintain law and order in Palestine, or admit their failure by clearing out? Further, will they ask the advice of the Russian Government as to what

steps they would take in similar circumstances?

Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the suspects detained were people who had been detained before but had been released by His Majesty's Government only a month or two before this incident?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am sorry, I am not in possession of that information but I will try to obtain it.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions? First, when he says the Irgun Zvai Leumi accept responsibility, what does he mean? Does he mean that they boast of this achievement, or does he mean that the persons managing that organisation have come forward and wish to be tried? Secondly, with apologies for repeating a suggestion I have made more than once before, would it not be wise to refer to these people always—and fairer from anyone's point of view—as Zionists and not as Jews?

Mr. Creech Jones: In a statement which was issued by the means open to these people, they did accept responsibility—

Mr. Pickthorn: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "accept responsibility"?

Mr. Creech Jones: They accepted responsibility in the sense that they assumed themselves liable for the action which they themselves organised. On the second point, I think a distinction must be drawn between normal Zionist organisations and terrorist groups.

Sir Ronald Ross: Have the soldiers concerned been given any compensation for having been the object of these terrible outrages?

Mr. Pickthorn: Answer.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question?

Sir R. Ross: I was asking if the soldiers concerned, the officer and staff sergeants who were flogged, have received any compensation for their obviously great sufferings as the innocent subjects of these disgusting outrages?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would ask the hon. Member to put that question on the Paper.

Mr. John Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if these deplorable floggings by the terrorists were not the direct outcome of a Hogging imposed by the authorities—[HON. MEMBERS:."Oh."]—and would it not be preferable that we should set an example by abandoning this humiliating form of punishment?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original reply, does he not think the fact most deplorable that immediately after the flogging outrages on these British troops a flogging sentence on a young Jew named Aaron Cohen was remitted after the general officer commanding had confirmed it?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter within the discretion of the general officer commanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."]—and it can be remitted subsequently by the High Commissioner.

Mr. Butcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any commendation has been conveyed to the troops for their very commendable forbearance and restraint in the face of this widespread provocation?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, we have repeatedly expressed our acknowledgements to those who have been suffering this admirable restraint.

Sir W. Smithers: May I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment in view of the disgraceful answer I have received today?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SARAWAK (LOYAL ASIATICS)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made to identify in British Malaya and Sarawak those Asiatics who, at great personal risk, assisted European prisoners or internees during the Japanese occupation; and if he will now make a statement with reference to the pension, gratuity, award or decoration which will be made to such persons or, in the case of their decease, to their families.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governors of the Malayan Union, Singapore and Sarawak for the information requested in the second part of the Ques-

tion, and I am now awaiting their reports. I am now asking them also to include in their reports the information desired in the first part of the Question and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have all the information.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the fact that I put down a similar Question a month or two ago and that feeling is aroused in these territories that we are not doing anything for these people, will my right hon. Friend make his answer widely known in those localities?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, and I will expedite the reply.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government have allowed 18 months to go by without paying any sort of tribute whatever to these people who risked their lives for our own men?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware that such tributes have not been paid. Indeed, on a number of occasions, I think references have been made—

Mr. Gammans: Not officially.

Mr. Creech Jones: —in this House and South-East Asia, but it is a point I will keep in mind

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON

Executive Committee for Home Affairs

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the Executive Committee for Home Affairs in Ceylon, by whom appointed, and with what terms of reference.

Mr. Creech Jones: This Committee consists, at the present time, of seven members of the State Council, one of whom is Chairman and, in consequence, Minister for Home Affairs. They are elected by the State Council, and corporately exercise general control over the Departments of Government concerned with the subjects or functions allocated to the Committee under the existing Constitution.

Administrative Posts

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many


British and Sinhalese officials, respectively, are holding administrative posts in Ceylon, in each of the nine provinces.

Mr. Creech Jones: The reply involves a number of figures and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will arrange to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The figures for Europeans and Sinhalese, respectively, for each province, are as follow:


Western
…
…
2 and 7


Central
…
…
1 and 7


Southern
…
…
1 and 7


Northern
…
…
Nil and 2


Eastern
…
…
2 and 3


North Western
…
…
Nil and 6


North Central
…
…
Nil and 4


Sabaragamuwa
…
…
1 and 2


Uva
…
…
2 and Nil

Political Offenders

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Ceylon, on 3rd December last, refused to pardon Dr. S. A. Wickremasingh, a man of good character and a delegate to the World Federation of Trade Unions, who had served a term of imprisonment for a political offence, although this pardon was desired by the State Council and by many representative bodies in Ceylon; and whether he will take, or instruct the Governor of Ceylon to take, steps to deal with a situation which is calculated to deprive Ceylon of valuable public servants.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware of the Governor's decision in this matter. As regards the second part of the Question, the prerogative of pardon is vested in the Governor, and I am satisfied that before he decided, as is within his discretion, that it should not be exercised in favour of the person in question, the Governor fully considered the case on its merits. As I stated in reply to the hon. and learned Member on 6th November, I can hardly intervene in such matters.

Mr. Pritt: May I ask two questions? First, does the Minister think it will conduce to what he desires in the way of a healthy trade union movement in Ceylon if the representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions in that Colony is refused a pardon which, in India, would be granted as a matter of course? Secondly, if this rule were strictly en-

forced in this country, how many of his colleagues would have to leave this House?

Mr. Creech Jones: On the first point, I want to make* the House understand that this is a matter within the discretion of the Governor, and it is not for me to intervene.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the Colonial territories is subject to the overriding responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who is responsible to this House for the exercise of that Prerogative?

Mr. Creech Jones: I imagine that there is a certain procedure which should be followed, and that in this case it has not been followed.

Mr. Stephen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the dismissal of the Governor?

Ex-Servicemen (Rehabilitation)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-Servicemen in Ceylon are unemployed; and what schemes have been formulated by the Government of Ceylon for the employment, resettlement and rehabilitation of Ceylonese members of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Creech Jones: About 9,500 ex-Servicemen are at present registered as unemployed in Ceylon. In 1945 the Government of Ceylon published a comprehensive guide to postwar employment for ex-Servicemen. A copy of this publication is being placed in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (RECONSTRUCTION GRANT)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the original £10,000,000 voted as a gift to Malta, for purposes of reconstruction, has been spent; how much has been spent in the United Kingdom; how much on building materials in the United Kingdom and how much abroad.

Mr. Creech Jones: £3,749,300 has so far been spent of the £10,000,000 grant. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, since 1944 £848,000 has been


spent in the United Kingdom and £149,000 in other countries outside Malta on materials required for building work; and of these materials it is estimated that 83 per cent. has been used for reconstruction. No expenditure outside Malta other than that on building materials has been charged to the grant.

Mr. Molson: In what other countries besides the United Kingdom have building materials been obtained?

Mr. Creech Jones: In order to be exact, I should ask for notice of the question.

Mr. Molson: Yes, but I would like to have that information before the Debate on Friday.

Mr. Scollan: Would the Minister be good enough to tell us how much of this was spent on building machinery in Scotland?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (GENERAL, STRIKE, MOMBASA)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the general strike at Mombasa, Kenya Colony, by African employees.

Mr. Creech Jones: The strike of African employees at Mombasa began on 13th January and affects nearly all African labour at Mombasa, amounting approximately to 15,000 persons. Rumours of an impending strike began to circulate during the first week in January. The Labour Commissioner of Kenya immediately held a series of meetings with representatives of the Railway African Staff Union, employees of the biggest stevedore company in Mombasa and about 120 further African representatives of all other African employees on the island. A number of complaints were put forward at these meetings, and the Labour Commissioner was engaged in investigations on the bases of these when the strike started. Many of the representations at the meetings with the Labour Commissioner expressed themselves as being opposed to strike action, but it is evident from the subsequent developments that they were not able to influence the workers as a whole. The Kenya Government is at present doing everything pos-

sible to persuade the strikers to return to work in order that their grievances may be properly investigated and where necessary remedied, but so far they have refused to do this until their grievances are met. The port is being kept open and all essential services maintained.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Were any instructions sent to Kenya with regard to amending trade union law so as to make a general strike legal?

Mr. Creech Jones: It must be remembered that a strike in itself is illegal, but the trade union law is being redrafted and improved. It should also be noted that the Government had already taken some action to improve conditions and, simultaneously with the declaration of strike—although the two events are not in any way connected—an announcement of a minimum wage was made.

Mr. Stanley: Is this an unofficial strike, or are the unions behind it?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, it is a very confused strike. There have been no demands, there is no union involved. It is a suffused feeling of disquiet, and the men simply refuse to work.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a growing feeling in the Colonial Empire that the general strike is now a popular weapon in view of the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the Minister, as this was a general strike, what action is being taken in the matter? Presumably it is illegal?

Mr. Creech Jones: The action taken is what I have said—every effort is being made to get the men to return to work. They have been asked to express their grievances in order that they should be examined, and all the essential services are being maintained.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEEWARD ISLANDS (ST. KITT'S SUGAR FACTORY)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a considerable demand in the Presidency of St. Christopher-Nevis that public ownership and operation of the St. Kitt's sugar factory should be instituted; and what answer has been returned to the petitioners presenting this demand.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am in communication with the Governor of the Leeward Islands on this subject, and will write to my hon. Friend as early as I can.

Mr. Stanley: This is a rather important Question. It has been raised many times by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). Could the answer be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (COCOA CROP)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an estimate of the current cocoa crop from the Gold Coast and Nigeria, as compared with those of the last three years.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply necessarily contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the crop is greater or smaller than that of last year?

Mr. Creech Jones: The crop in 1944–45 was 306,000 tons, and in the following year it was 298,000 tons.

Following is the reply:

The latest official estimate of the current Gold Coast and Nigerian cocoa crop is 290,000 tons. Actual figures for the three previous seasons are:



Tons


1943–44
…
…
254,000


1944–45
…
…
306,000


1945–46
…
…
298,000

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Prize Money

Mr. Channon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make a further announcement concerning the payment of prize money

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I regret that I am unable to add anything at present to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) on 5th June, 1946, and to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on 30th October, 1946.

Requisitioned Premises (Rental Compensation)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) why the Director of Navy Accounts has given notice to owners of requisitioned premises that, in future, rental compensation will not be paid unless they apply at the end of each period for which payment is due, giving full particulars upon a prescribed form; and whether he will give an assurance that money due unconditionally from his Department will be paid without the imposition of any condition;
(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that payments are made not later than the due dates in respect of requisitioned premises, since the Director of Navy Accounts has required application to be made upon Form 83 Ww-TRB at the end of each period for which rental compensation is due, and before payment each application is considered by D.N.A.7 (Bill Room), D.N.A. 6 (3c), Auditors, C.E. in C, and again by D.N.A. 7; and what necessary functions are performed by each of these authorities in regard to such applications.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The re-introduction of the notice referred to requiring periodic application for the payment of compensation rental, was made in order to minimise the possibility, at a time when properties are being released from requisition with great rapidity, that compensation rental might continue to be paid after it had in fact ceased to be payable. As regards the possibility of delay in payment, I think the hon. Member has perhaps been misled by the list of departmental authorities printed on the form to which he refers. This includes those to whom payments are referred for notation and scrutiny after they have actually been made. It has, however, now been decided to continue for the present, with appropriate safeguards, to make these payments without application, as actually done since 1942, and this will, I think, give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks.

Sir J. Mellor: While I welcome the answer of the Civil Lord, may I ask whether owners will be informed that there is no need for them to fill up the forms already sent to them?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir, we shall take all possible steps to make that known to them.

Promotions from Lower Deck

Mr. Cobb: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) how many of the 57 officers promoted to the rank of captain and commander, respectively, as announced in the half-yearly list of 1st January, commenced their service careers in the ranks;
(2) how many of the six captains who were promoted to rear-admiral on 8th January, 1947, commenced their career in the ranks.

Mr. Dugdale: Six captains in the Executive Branch have recently been promoted to rear-admiral, 18 commanders to captain, and 35 lieutenant-commanders to commander. One of the captains promoted to rear-admiral, and four of the officers promoted to commander, began their naval careers on the lower deck.

Mr. Cobb: In view of the small number promoted in this way, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the more ancient Merchant Navy, since the days of Canute, the most excellent practice of promoting men serving before the mast has been followed? Will he consider introducing this desirable practice to a greater extent?

Mr. Dugdale: I think my hon. Friend will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the First Lord is giving his personal consideration to the question of promotions from the lower deck.

Sir R. Ross: Have not British naval officers had for many hundreds of years throughout the world the unrivalled reputation of being the best in the world?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. But that does not mean that we should not secure equally good ones from the lower deck.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that promotions of officers up to the rank of captain is a matter of selection, and not a question of whether they come from the lower deck?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, it is a matter of selection.

Court-Martial (Personal Case)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his

attention has been drawn to the case of Petty-Officer Jack Mantle, who was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment at a court-martial held at Chatham on 22nd November, 1946; and if he will state under which section of the Naval Discipline Act this man was charged and the exact wording of the charge made against him.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The charge brought against Assistant Cook (S) Jack Mantle at Chatham, on 22nd November last, was under Section 19 of the Naval Discipline Act, and was worded as follows:
For that he, Jack Mantle, Assistant Cook (S), Official Number Chatham MX. 56498, belonging to His Majesty's Ship 'Pembroke,' then being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act, did on the 20th day of February, 1939, desert from the said ship.
Although Mantle was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and to dismissal from His Majesty's Service, the sentence was reduced on review by the Admiralty to 60 days' imprisonment and dismissal from the Service, and Mantle was released from prison after serving 40 days from the date of his sentence.

Mr. Cobb: Will my hon. Friend say why this man was kept in solitary confinement for eight weeks awaiting trial, and why the defending officer did not take steps to verify the man's story that he served for five years in the Army during the time he was absent from the Navy?

Mr. Dugdale: With regard to the second part of that question, the fact remains that when the case was reviewed by the Admiralty, these facts were taken fully into consideration, and as a result of their being taken into consideration, the sentence was reduced.

Captain Marsden: How long was this man absent after deserting before he surrendered or was apprehended?

Mr. Dugdale: That is an important point. He was absent from early in 1939 to March, 1941, when other men were, in fact, serving.

Mr. Cobb: He was in the Army.

Officers' Training (U.S. Cooperation)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the cooperation for training of officers in


the R.A.F. taking place between Great Britain and the U.S.A. is also to be extended to the training of naval officers of both countries.

Mr. Dugdale: No arrangements have been concluded for cooperation in training between officers of the United States Navy and the Royal Navy.

Mr. Piratin: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to emulate the example set by the R.A.F.?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot possibly give advance information on that point.

Detention Quarters (Gas Training)

Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his regulations allow men serving sentences in R.N. detention barracks to be made to wear gas masks while doubling.

Mr. Dugdale: The regulations for the Royal Naval detention quarters neither prescribe nor forbid instructions in gas training. It is an ordinary feature of gas training throughout the Navy to require officers and men to take violent exercise, including doubling, while wearing gas masks, both to familiarise themselves with these conditions and to test the masks. I understand that similar drills are carried out in Naval detention quarters. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member has any reason to believe that this practice is being abused in Royal Naval detention quarters, I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

Brigadier Maclean: Can me Parliamentary Secretary saw whether a man's state of health is taken into account before this is done?

Mr. Dugdale: Most certainly.

Mr. Scollan: Would the Minister be prepared to extend this to divers' seaboots as well as gas masks?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Australian Food Parcels (Delivery)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that food parcels sent from

Australia, addressed to homes in this country, have been delivered to Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Holland: and how this has happened.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): I have no evidence that parcels posted in Australia to persons in this country have been diverted from their proper addressees; but if the hon. and gallant Member will supply me with details I will gladly have inquiry made.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that this matter was widely reported in all the national Press just before Christmas? Perhaps he will make further inquiries to see if it is a fact?

Mr. Burke: There was a similar rumour last year, but when we made inquiries we were told there was no truth in the allegation.

Mails, Yell and Unst

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will now arrange for a daily distribution of mails to Yell and Unst.

Mr. Burke: The possibility of affording a daily delivery of mails in the islands of Yell and Unst is being examined, and I will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as the necessary inquiries have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. MILITARY AND NAVAL BASES

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister if he will detail those parts in British territory where the U.S.A. have military or naval bases; and those parts where the bases are used jointly by British and U.S. Forces.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. The United States of America have no bases in territory under United Kingdom administration other than those in the West Indies and Bermuda covered by the Bases Agreement concluded with the United States of America during the war; and in certain areas in the Pacific, such as the Ellice and Solomon Islands, where the United States of America have constructed certain installations, the future of which has not yet been decided. There are no military or


naval bases in territory under United Kingdom administration which are used jointly by British and United States Forces.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Government to conclude these arrangements whereby the U.S.A. is using bases in the Pacific so that we can look after the matter ourselves?

Mr. Alexander: I would require to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESERTERS (SURRENDER CALL)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make an announcement arising from the review by the Service Departments of the problem of deserters.

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now consider proposals for a general or selective amnesty for the 13,176, 1,500 and 392 deserters for a period of more than one year from the Army, R.N. and R.A.F., respectively, in view of the fact that police reports indicate that these deserters are responsible for the increasing gang war fare and hooliganism, as well as the general increase in the number of crimes of violence.

Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions in reply to these Questions.

Later—

Mr. Alexander: The following is the statement in reply to Questions Nos. 47 and 48. There is a considerable number of deserters in the United Kingdom amounting to nearly 20,000 men. So long as these men remain in a state of desertion, they are not only committing an offence against military law, for which they are liable to arrest, but since they have no civilian status, they are dependent for food and clothing either upon private charity or upon breaches of the law relating to rationing and control of commodities and are in many cases leading an underground existence. The Government have already announced that there can be no amnesty to these men, since this would give them preferential treatment over those who are

complying with their military obligations, but it is to the advantage and wellbeing of the men themselves and of the nation as a whole that they should take steps now which will enable them eventually to resume normal lives as free citizens.
Those who are now deserters are strongly recommended to surrender at once. Those who surrender voluntarily by 31st March, 1947, will have this fact arid any other mitigating circumstances taken into account when their cases are determined. Those who surrender (other than men who entered on regular engagements) and have had previous service are reminded that they will have their previous service restored for the purpose of the release scheme if they serve satisfactorily for a further twelve months. Surrender will eventually lead to the rehabilitation of each man and in due course to his restoration to normal civil life. Subject to special rules as regards War Gratuity, he will also obtain those benefits to which his completed term of service entitles him.
The general public is reminded of the penalties to which a person is liable if convicted of the offence of concealing a deserter. The maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £30. The Government earnestly request the cooperation of everyone, especially relatives, friends and employers of the men concerned, in securing that these men surrender or are traced, and in ending the social evils which result from the existence in the community of numbers of persons without any recognised civil status.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister of Defence emphasise very strongly the important effect of mitigation of a voluntary surrender before 31st March, 1947?

Mr. Alexander: I think the paragraph which I have quoted emphasises that, but we will certainly underline it for publication.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister say whether any special machinery will be set up to deal with the particular cases of those who voluntarily surrender so that there is no undue delay in arriving at what, I hope, will be a satisfactory decision in each case?

Mr. Alexander: I will certainly discuss the point raised by my hon. and gallant


Friend with the Service Ministers concerned, but they must administer the machinery.

Mr. Gallacher: While the Minister is issuing this appeal, which I hope will have a good effect, will he consider, at the same time, setting up a commission for the purpose of going into the whole character of courts-martial and sentences imposed by courts-martial in view of the appalling stories given in this House?

Mr. Stephen: May I ask the Minister whether this only applies to deserters in this country, or whether it will apply to deserters, say, in Italy and other countries as well?

Mr. Alexander: It is because it applies to some men abroad that we have put the date as far back as 31st March, which will give them some ten or 11 weeks.

Mr. Logan: In view of the anxiety felt in many quarters, will the Minister make a broadcast in regard to this concession?

Mr. Alexander: I will consider that, but I am not in favour of broadcasting every two or three minutes.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In the event of men surrendering, will the Minister ensure that the methods of defence in any court-martial that takes place will be equal in respect of the three Services— that is, a good defence?

Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that there was no doubt about that, but I will look specially at the point.

Mr. Rankin: In the case of those men who have already surrendered, will the Minister be prepared to indicate the type of sentence which has already been passed in those particular cases?

Mr. Alexander: They vary tremendously according to the circumstances.

Mr. Berry: Docs the Minister think that it is any inducement to men to surrender in view of the recent brutal sentence passed on a man by a naval court-martial after he had served in the Army?

Mr. Alexander: I am not familiar with all the details of that particular case, but I have a recollection that the sentence was very much reduced on review by the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OCCUPATION FORCE, JAPAN

Brigadier Maclean: asked the Minister of Defence what prospect there is of the British Commonwealth zone of occupation in Japan being increased to take in at least one large town, which would provide the British Commonwealth Occupation Force with some of the amenities which they at present lack.

Mr. Alexander: The need for increased amenities for the British Commonwealth Occupation Force is fully realised. The desirability of adjusting the area of occupation has been under consideration for some time. It is now necessary, however, to examine the effect of the proposed withdrawal in the near future of certain British troops before further steps can be taken in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Imported Butter (Prices)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food (1) from which countries, including countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations, butter is obtained at the present time at prices below the price of Danish butter; and if he will supply figures in this connection;
(2) whether, in connection with the inability of the Danes to continue to supply large quantities of butter and other foodstuffs to this country at the present prices prevailing, due account has been taken of the fact that whereas this country is able to force down the price at which food is obtained from Denmark by employing a system of bulk purchase, Danish imports from Great Britain are not submitted to any similar bulk purchase scheme; and if he will arrange that this consideration is given full weight in further negotiations;
(3) whether he is aware that whereas Britain has only been paying 4.18 kroner a kilo for Danish butter, the U.S.S.R. has been prepared to pay 4.71 kroner and Poland and Switzerland have been prepared to pay up to 6 kroner; and whether, in view of the importance of preserving an ample and regular flow of Danish food to this country, he will take these factors into account in continuing the negotiations.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am discussing the purchase of dairy products with an official Danish delegation in London. The prices we are paying for butter from other sources of supply are in every case below the Danish price. The figures, per cwt. f.o.b., are: New Zealand, 175s.; Australia, 173s. 6d.; Kenya. 171s; Denmark, 220s.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that if he continues this policy of paying low prices generally for foodstuffs in Denmark they will be compelled to purchase finished goods from other countries rather than from here, and is he aware that the Danes are steadily losing respect for this nation?

Mr. Strachey: I have just read out the prices, which show a very wide margin of increase in the Danish prices over those which we are paying elsewhere.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that the Danes themselves are having to subsidise butter which they export to this country?

Milk Registration (Personal Case)

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Food why Mr. Davies, on leaving Sheffield to reside at 31, Primley Park Avenue, Alwoodly, Leeds, has been made to purchase his milk from the cooperative society, when the previous tenant dealt with a private milk retailer.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Davies was registered with a co-operative society in Sheffield, and so, in order to maintain equity between the two sections of the trade, he must also register with one at his new address.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Minister aware that this man's new address is not in Sheffield but in Leeds and that the previous occupier of the house purchased from a private milkman? When will the people of this country have their rudimentary freedom restored to them so that they can change their milkmen?

Mr. Strachey: The arrangement is, of course, that if a man registered with a private milkman moves, he must register with a private milkman, and if he is registered with a co-operative milkman and moves, he must register with a cooperative milkman—

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Strachey: Because under the arrangements made—

Sir W. Smithers: Dictatorship.

Mr. Strachey: The dictatorship of my predecessors but not my dictatorship. If this arrangement was disturbed now, both sides of the milk distribution trade would be most adversely affected.

Barley (Use)

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will modify his announcement to permit an increase in the production of whisky and devote, during the present food crisis, the amount of grain which he proposed to allow to the distillers to more useful purposes.

Mr. Strachey: I have not yet made an announcement on this matter.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the Minister aware that throughout the barley growing areas of the North-East of Scotland vast quantities of barley are deteriorating because there is no demand for it other than for distilling, which the right hon. Gentleman will not allow?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. There is indeed a very strong demand for barley for other purposes. It is needed desperately for feedingstuffs. That does not mean that I do not consider the use of it for distilling to be a very important one, because of the export trade, and I very much hope to be able to allow some to be used for that purpose.

Mr. Hudson: Do I understand from the original reply that neither the Minister nor his Department has made any announcement with regard to the matter?

Mr. Strachey: I hope to do so very shortly.

Dominion Offers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food to what extent in the past year his Department has declined to buy food supplies offered by the British Dominions.

Mr. Strachey: We have not refused any suitable foodstuffs offered us by the Dominions, except in one or two cases in which there were special reasons—such for example as health regulations—for the refusal of very small quantities of certain foods.

Lemons

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Food why the quantity of lemons imported from Italy during 1946 was only approximately 75 per cent. of the 1945 figure; what action he has taken, or proposes taking, to procure increased supplies from Italy or elsewhere during 1947, if necessary at the expense of the more costly fruits; and when these are likely to be available.

Mr. Strachey: In the 1945–46 season imports were smaller because the crop was smaller This year we have already secured about 7,000 tons from Palestine, Cyprus and South Africa, and arrangements have been made to import 12,000 tons from Italy, which will start arriving early in February. I have expectations of getting additional supplies. We do not lose any lemons by importing the minor fruits to which my hon. Friend refers.

Imported Turkeys

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the turkeys brought to this country in the s.s. "Highland Monarch" were sold to consumers before Christmas.

Mr. Strachey: About 72 per cent.

Feedingstuffs (Exports)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food the total tonnage of animal feedingstuffs which has been exported from this country during the year ended 31st December, 1946; and indicate the recipient countries and the relative percentages.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply includes a long table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, under present conditions, we should be exporting any animal feedingstuffs at all?

Mr. Strachey: I can give the total. It is 16,000 tons, of which over 95 per cent. went partly to the Channel Islands while the other was swopped with the French for groundnuts which we wanted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Swopped?"] "Exchanged," if hon. Members prefer it, but I repeat, "swopped," if Mr. Speaker (has no objection to the term.

Following is the answer:


TOTAL TONNAGE OF ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS EXPORTED FROM U.K. DURING YEAR ENDED 31ST DECEMBER, 1946 (a), RECIPIENT COUNTRIES AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES.



Tons.
Percentage of Total.


Channel Islands (b)
7,241
44·27


Other British Countries.




Eire
38
·24


Ascension and St. Helena (d).
44
·27


S.W. African Territory
20
·12


S. Rhodesia
8
·05


British India
91
·56


Federated Malay States
5
·03


Australia
25
·15


New Zealand
31
·19


Canada
24
·14


Falkland Islands
5
·03


Other British Countries (under 5 tons).
19
·12


Foreign Countries.




Faroe Islands (c)
495
3·03


Finland (g)
50
·31


Sweden (g)
30
·18


Norway (g)
6
·04


Denmark (g)
7
·04


Poland—including Danzig (g)
89
·54


Germany (f)
577
3·53


Netherlands (g)
106
·65


France (e)
7,333
44.83


Switzerland (g)
106
·65


Other Foreign Countries (under 5 tons) (g).
6
·04


Total 16,356


(a) Provisional figures only axe available for the month of December.


(b)Supplies are provided sufficient to maintain in the Channel Islands the level of animal rations in force in Great Britain.


(c)The U.K. accepted responsibility for supplies to the Faroe Islands from the date of the establishment of bases in the Islands. This arrangement was terminated in October, 1946, and the responsibility assumed by Denmark.


(d) Special deliveries rendered necessary by the failure of normal supplies.


(e)Groundnut cakes and meals in exchange for an equivalent quantity of ground nuts. In consequence of this exchange the U.K. neither gained nor lost any feeding stuffs.


(f) The whole of this item consists of straw.


(g)The majority of these items consist of hay or straw and they do not contain any rationed feeding stuffs.

Jam (Labelling)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what is the result of his consultation with jam manufacturers to ensure that the product is labelled to show what the fruit content really is.

Mr. Strachey: I hope to start consultations with the jam manufacturers early-next month.

Colchester Co-operative Society

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food if he has yet taken a decision whether the trading licence of the Colchester Co-operative Society is to be revoked, subsequent upon its conviction for black market offences.

Mr. Strachey: I do not normally revoke licences for a first offence, and shall not do so in this case; but the Society has been warned that I shall consider revoking its licence at once if there is any further conviction against it or any of its employees.

Unofficial Strikes (Ration Cards)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for the immediate withdrawal of ration cards from all men and women who indulge in unofficial strikes, or deduct the number of days on unofficial strike for the next renewal period.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that in the Russian occupied zone of Germany there are notices, "No work, no food"; and unless that principle is applied here quickly, we shall all starve to death?

Mr. Strachey: I am surprised at the hon. Member's desire to imitate Soviet practice in this matter. While not accepting this as Soviet practice, I would say that the suggestion that he makes in his Question would amount to the Government adopting these tyrannical practices of which he is very often, and, if I may say so, very unjustly accusing us.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Randall.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully submit that I have been attacked by the Minister. Is not the Minister aware—

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Sir W. Smithers: May I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Condemned Foodstuffs

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that human food

becoming unsuitable for general consumption is despatched immediately to manufacturers for conversion into cattle food.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Condemned foodstuffs which have no possible use for human consumption are at once either allocated to manufacturers of animal feed-ingstuffs or sold direct to farmers for feeding to their stock.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Can the Minister say whether it is the practice for food which is poisonous or in any other way deleterious to be given to animals? If it is used for food for animals, are they going to be suitable for human needs afterwards?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Special Dietetic Allowances (Medical Advice)

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Food in how many cases in the last six months his medical advisers have overruled advice as to dietetic and other requirements given by medical practioners in actual charge of the patients concerned whom his advisers have not themselves seen at any time.

Mr. Strachey: During the six months to 31st December, 1946, 235 applications which had been individually referred to the medical advisers were refused extra supplies of rationed foods as a result of the advice which was tendered.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Has there been direct personal contact by the advisers in any of these cases?

Mr. Strachey: When we reach the next Question but one—No. 71—I will be able to give a full answer.

Sir E. Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Food how many members of the Special Diets Advisory Committee, by whose direction applications by doctors for special dietetic allowances have been refused, are under 40 years of age; are in active practice as consultants and as general practitioners; and at what date the schedule of ailments with recommendations to deal with each was last revised.

Mr. Strachey: One member is under 40 Six members are in active practice as consultants. There are no general practitioners. The schedule of ailments is constantly under their review.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average age of these ten persons is 55 plusand that no member of that Committee has had any acquaintance with general practice and personal experience of the doctor-patient relationship?

Mr. Strachey: I think we will avoid complications if the hon. Gentleman asks the next Question.

Sir E. Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the withdrawal from a patient, in the care of certain doctors in Birmingham, of an allowance of fat essential to the maintenance of the patient's life, was followed by his death within a few days, and if he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of this overriding of the opinion of doctors in actual charge of a patient.

Mr. Strachey: In the very sad case referred to by the hon. Member, the patient died of inoperable cancer. My medical advisers inform me that the grant or refusal of an extra fat ration can have had no influence whatever upon the course of this tragic disease. Extra milk and eggs were granted on medical grounds to this patient, and an allowance of butter was, in fact, granted, after being discontinued for only two days, on compassionate grounds.
I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House of the system under which these special allowances of rationed foods are given. In 1940, the then Minister of Food, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), obtained the help of the Medical Research Council in this difficult matter. The Medical Research Council set up a Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee. The function of the Committee is to advise the Minister how best to dispose of the very limited amount of extra food available for invalids. This independent, honorary and authoritative Committee advises the Minister of Food what categories of illness require special rations, and establishes scales of the additional foodstuffs needed for each category. A list of these categories was circulated to every medical practitioner in the country. The certification from the practitioner that the patient is suffering from the illness specified is always accepted without question. It was so accepted in this case, and the official concerned had to inform

the practitioner that in such cases two points of milk daily and three eggs a week were allowed, but not additional butter. The lay official transmitted an incorrect reason for refusing the butter. The practitioner then appealed, but, there being no reason given for regarding this case as in any way different from others in this category, the Committee confirmed the refusal, giving the correct medical reasons for doing so. The Committee also considers applications from medical practitioners for additional foodstuffs for patients who would be excluded on a strict application of the scales of allowances laid down for each type of illness or condition. The Committee, therefore, acts as a court of appeal on borderline cases.
This admirable system was continued by successive Ministers of Food, and I have every confidence in it. In fact, I should like to pay the warmest possible tribute—with which I am sure each of my predecessors in my present office would associate himself—to the eminent medical men who have, through all these years, carried out these arduous and difficult duties.
The membership of the Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council is as follows:

Sir Edward Mellanby, K.C.B., F.R.S., M.D., F.R.C.P., (Chairman).
Professor L. S P. Davidson, F.R.S.E., M.D., F.R.C.P., Professor of Med. University of Edinburgh.
Professor Sir Francis Fraser, M.D., F.R.C.P., FR.C.P.E., Professor Med., University of London.
Lord Horder, G.C.V.O., M.D., F.R.C.P.
Dr. R. D. Lawrence, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Professor R. A. McCance, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Dr. M. L. Rosenheim, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Dr. Norman Smith, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Professor J. C Spence, M.D, F.R.C.P., Professor of Child Health, University of Durham.
Professor H. P. Himsworth, M.D., F.R.C.P., Professor Med., University of London (Secretary).
Lord Dawson of Penn, the then President of the British Medical Association, was an active member of the Committee until the time of his death.

Mr. Churchill: Is there any reason to believe that doctors have been abusing the right of giving advice as to extra diet to their patients in the past few years, and has this abuse amounted to such dimensions as to make an appreciable effect upon the general problem of food supplies?

Mr. Strachey: Well, Sir, I should not like to accuse the medical profession of abuse in the matter, but the amount of extra milk given on medical priority grounds has caused concern to myself, and, on other occasions, to my predecessors, and to this medical Committee, and we have asked doctors, through the medical Press, to have regard to the need, particularly in the case of milk, for restricting the extra amount which is granted on medical grounds.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how frequently this distinguished Committee meets, and why it took from 3rd August to 20th December to get them to agree to provide white flour for a man for whom it was too late, as he died on the 23rd? Why did it take all that time for the consideration of what is called a borderline case, and will he tell us how often the Committee meet to consider borderline cases?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member without notice whether it is a weekly meeting or whether it is arranged in regard to the business before them. I could give him the information if he will put a Question down.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has read out a long and impressive list of all these great authorities whose high standing is supposed to flatten out all criticism of their work, but has he not taken the opportunity, when examining all their credentials and qualifications, to find out how often they meet and how long it takes them to get a borderline case dealt with? Is he now sure, as we all recognise the intelligence which he is giving to his task, that this impressive apparatus at the top is effectively dealing with the many urgent matters which arise in practical instances in ordinary life?

Mr. Strachey: If there were any reflection on the work this Committee is doing, or on the assiduity with which they are performing their functions, I should resent it very much indeed, because I think they have performed these functions over a number of years—very arduous and often invidious functions—and they have done so voluntarily and in an honorary capacity. I certainly think they have performed them as well as they could be performed. I was most careful to find out the average

time which appeals made to the Committee take, and it turned out to be nine days, which seems to me to be a not unreasonable time by any means. I was asked how often the Committee meet, and that I cannot say.

Mr. Churchill: I presume, nevertheless, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the exact dates of the meetings of the Committee in the last year or 18 months.

Mr. Logan: I wish to ask the Minister if he will withdraw what he has just stated and give power to medical men to give prescriptions for extras to be given to their patients? In the poorer areas, it is absolutely essential that the medical man's advice shall be taken: lives are saved by medical men, and not by committees.

Mr. Strachey: I could not possibly change the system.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Strachey: For reasons which all my predecessors, including those of the party opposite, appreciated—that all the reasons which applied when this Committee was set up still hold today, and I believe that it would be entirely wrong to change the system. In the case of milk, which I have given, and I do not wish to use any but the most moderate language, it certainly appears, from the amount of milk given on medical prescriptions, that there must be some eminent and independent medical authority reviewing these cases.

Mr. Churchill: Yes, but might not the process be conducted in reverse, namely, that if a medical man, a doctor attending a patient, certifies that the matter is urgent, the diet should be given, within the approved limits, pending reconsideration by higher authority?

Mr. Strachey: That would be very good if it could be done. The medical Committee has laid down the categories of illnesses, ailments and conditions which qualify for the extra ration.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt with the point. The point is that a doctor attending a patient should have the responsibility of saying that special patients shall be allowed to have the extra rations until the matter is dealt with by the higher authority.

Mr. Strachey: If the doctor certifies that the patient is suffering from a condition which, on the scales laid down by this Committee which I have read out, carries with it the extra ration, then he does automatically and immediately receive that extra ration.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: The patient has to have the right disease before he can have it?

Mr. Norman Bower: Since 135 recommendations have been overruled in six months, and there are not less than 10 members of this medical Committee, would it not be possible for patients to be seen by at least one member of the Committee before the recommendation was overruled?

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer he has given has greatly relieved the anxiety caused by newspaper reports, and that hon. Members opposite are now filled with chagrin at the fact that the diagnosis and determination of the distribution of this food are in the hands of such an eminent authority; further, is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is making a speech and is not asking a quesiton.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Minister it he has taken into account the effect on a patient where his own doctor has recommended that a certain diet is necessary for his recovery and where that is refused by the food office? Can he say how much food has actually been saved over the past year by rejecting doctors' certificates?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. It would be impossible to do that. I repeat that we must have scales of specific illnesses and conditions. If hon. Members press me on that point I shall have to return to the instance of milk where a doctor's certificate for dyspepsia carries with it an increased milk allowance which has a very marked effect on the consumption of milk.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Has the right hon. Gentleman also considered that it may well be the opinion of the individual doctor that more milk is required today in view of the shortage of other foods? It is all very well to talk about scales laid down by his predecessors, but it should be remembered that other foods were then available.

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are now getting rather heated and had better go on to the next Business.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATION

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that supplies of household soap and soap flakes are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain; and what steps he is taking to increase supplies.

Mr. Strachey: It is exceedingly difficult under conditions of shortage to ensure that all the different kinds of soap are available in the desired proportions everywhere. But in order to ensure that the present ration is met we have increased the fats allocation to manufacturers by five per cent.

Captain Crowder: Would the Minister bear in mind that owing to the difficulty that everybody has with laundries, it is most important to have available as much household soap as possible; and could he look into the matter as to whether there is a disproportion between household and toilet soap, because householders have great difficulty in these days in getting soap flakes?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Butcher: Is the Minister aware that his divisional officers in Manchester and elsewhere give no facilities for the movement of soap stored in warehouses in Liverpool?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Member would give me particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAUGHTERHOUSES (CONDITIONS)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the disgust caused by recent revelations regarding the conditions prevailing in slaughterhouses; if he will give permission to local authorities to construct slaughterhouses where humane slaughter can be carried out efficiently; and also state his policy generally with regard to this matter.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that


the number of slaughterhouses has been reduced, he will now take steps to increase the number where humane slaughter can be carried out efficiently.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the widespread complaints about the condition of slaughterhouses; and what he proposes to do to improve them.

Mr. Beechman: asked the Minister of Food whether the Government have yet formulated a national policy for slaughterhouses; and whether such a policy will be announced as soon as possible, to enable local authorities and others concerned to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the widespread concern at the cruel conditions under which cattle are slaughtered in many parts of the country; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the evil.

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the public concern about the conditions in which animals are killed in slaughterhouses under the control of his Ministry; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the law is strictly enforced.

Mr. Strachey: I am aware that letters have appeared in the Press containing allegations of cruelty in the slaughtering of animals for human food. The provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, are complied with by the slaughtering contractors employed by my Department and I am satisfied that there is no justification for the sweeping accusations which have been made. I am well aware of the need for new and better slaughterhouses. But I fear that I cannot expect to get a very high priority for them in the building programme. As to long term policy, I cannot at present add to the

reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) on 18th November, 1946.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to see that when cattle are taken to the markets and slaughterhouses, they are conveyed by transport and not allowed to go along the roads in present conditions, which involve a good deal of hardship and cruelty?

Mr. Strachey: I will consider that.

Mr. Assheton: Would the Minister pay a visit to some of the slaughterhouses?

Mr. Strachey: I will consider that suggestion.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the Minister consider giving a licence to more of the original slaughterhouses, because it is due to congestion caused by the limited number of slaughterhouses that this sort of thing takes place?

Mr. Strachey: I will consider that point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business specially affecting the suspension of the Rule?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. We propose to suspend the Rule in order to obtain the Report stage of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Bill and the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill. We also hope that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Pensions (Increase) Bill, which is to be taken as first Order tomorrow. This is a new Resolution designed to ensure that certain aged State pensioners will receive the full benefit of the recent increases in old-age pensions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.']

The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 116.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKinlay, A. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Foot, M. M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Alpass, J. H.
Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J P W.


Attewell, H. C.
Gallacher, W.
Mane, Mrs. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Gibbins, J.
Marquand, H, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Gibson, C. W
Mathers, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gilzean, A.
Medland, H. M.


Balfour, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian


Barstow, P. G.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R


Barton, C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Monslow, W.


Battley, J. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Montague, F,


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Berry, H.
Grierson, E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
Moyle, A.


Binns, J.
Gunter, R. J.
Murray, J. D.


Blyton, W. R.
Guy, W. H.
Naily, W.


Boardman, H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.


Bowden, Flg.-Oflr. H. W.
Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hall, W. G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Bramall, Major E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy. E. A.
Oldneld, W. H.


Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)
Harris, H Wilson
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.


Buchanan, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Burden, T. W.
Hicks, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Burke, W. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Byers, Frank
House, G.
Perrins, W.


Carmichael, James
Hoy, J.
Piratin, P


Champion, A. J.
Hubbard, T.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Chafer, D.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Clitherow, Dr. R
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pritt, D. N.


Cluse, W. S.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Proctor, W. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pryde, D. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Coldrick, W
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.


Collindridge, F
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rankin, J.


Collins, V. J.
John, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.


Cook, T. F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Daggar, G.
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Daines, P.
Kirby, B. V.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lang, G.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lavers, S
Scollan, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr. E. A. A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Deer, G.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipson, D. L.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dye, S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Edelman, M.
Longden, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McAdam, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.
Soley, L. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Stamford, W.


Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.
Stephen, C.


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Stubbs, A. E.




Swingler, S.
Walkden, E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Symonds, A. L.
Walker, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Watkins, T E.
Willis, E.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watson, W. M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Ed'b'g, E)
Weitzman, D.
Wise, Major F. J


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, A


Thurtle, E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wyatt, W.


Timmons, J
West, D. G.
Yates, V. F.


Tolley, L
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Turner-Samuels, M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Usborne, Henry
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Mr. Simmons and


Vernon, Maj. W. F
Wilkes, L.
Mr. Popplewell


Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Prescott, Stanley


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W


Bullock, Capt. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butcher, H. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Conant, Maj. R J. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Davidson, Viscountess
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


De la Bere, R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Neven-Spenoe, Sir B.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nicholson, G.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Nutting, Anthony
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Graham-Little, Sir E
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Grant, Lady
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Agricultural Wages Committees and Agricultural Wages Board.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as the Minister) shall establish an agricultural wages committee for each county in England and Wales and an Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.

(2) An agricultural wages committee and the Agricultural Wages Board shall respectively be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.

(3) The Minister may, if he thinks it expedient, establish one agricultural wages committee for two or more counties instead of a separate committee for each county should resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties, and thereupon that committee shall be the agricultural wages committee for the combined counties.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section there shall be one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Schedule to this Act.

(5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties the Minister


at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee by resolution of the representative members shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall, for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county.— [captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.2 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to 'move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should like to explain, if I may do so shortly, that I do not in the least wish to discuss the merits of this proposed new Clause. This Bill deals with agricultural wages, and there is a great deal to be said for having, after it is enacted, all the provisions dealing with agricultural wages in one document, in one Act. This was a point made by one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), during the Second Reading Debate. In fact, he pointed out that under the Bill, as we then had it, the provisions in the Third Schedule with regard to amending the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Amendment Act, '1940, were quite ridiculous. When we reached the Committee stage, my hon. Friends and myself devised certain Amendments to get over that difficulty, and to that extent to consolidate the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to accept our form of wording, but afterwards did accept the proposal, and the specific point made by the hon Member for North-West Hull was, therefore, dealt with.
Emboldened by our success on that occasion the Opposition—who are constructive when it is necessary and wise to be constructive—have put down on the Order Paper dozens of Amendments which, it passed by this House, would have the effect of making this Bill not only an amended Bill, but a consolidating Measure, and the whole of the law would be quite clear. The key to this long string of Amendments—if it is not out of Order to refer to them—is contained in the very last two Amendments on the Order Paper:—In page 11, line 32. column 3, to leave out lines 32 to 45, and to insert" the whole Act": and in page 12, line 3, column 3, to leave out lines 3 to 13, and to insert "the whole Act." If the House accepts this long string of Amendments —which I think I may call, if it is not a contradiction in terms, anticipatory consequential Amendments—it would mean

that the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, would no longer have to be referred to by anybody who wanted to know the position regarding agricultural wages. That is the object of this proposed new Clause. I must apologise to the House on behalf of my hon. Friends for haying put down so many Amendments which all deal with the same point.
If we agree to the idea of consolidation, then all the other Amendments follow. If we do not agree now, then they fall to the ground. I, therefore, move this proposed new Clause, because I think it is the right thing to do. Any Government, when one wants to amend and consolidate, are always in this difficulty, that if they put into the original Bill all the Clauses which are merely consolidating Clauses they become vulnerable about them, because they are then all open to debate. There is, therefore—and I know this as a former Minister—a natural reluctance to take that course, because it means bringing in a Bill twice the length necessary, and if the Opposition are tiresome, which this Opposition are not, an enormous field of debate is invited, which would not be open to the Opposition if that were not put into the Bill because it is the law anyway, and the question does not arise. But it is a very different proposition if the Opposition think that any particular Bill is one which it would be wise to amend and consolidate simultaneously, because the Opposition can bring forward those Amendments and can give, as I give today, a guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he is prepared to accept the idea and to incorporate all these Amendments he can have the whole lot of them formally. Then the length of time which will be devoted to them will merely be the time taken by the Clerk reading out the title of the proposed new Clauses, you, Sir, putting the Question and me nodding my head. There will be no debate on them, whether we agree on the merits or not. I am not raising that issue; I am not saying we necessarily agree on all that is enacted, but we are not raising that today. We merely put this forward as a public help in understanding the legislation we are passing.
Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet me. It may be we have left out something. After all, we have done our best. We had a Christmas


holiday and tried to work on this with this object in view. However, we may have slipped up and left out something. I am quite prepared to admit that. If that is so, I will go further and say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he finds that to be the case, and it is necessary to make certain drafting Amendments of a consolidating kind in another place, when those Amendments come back to this House we would, on his guaranteeing to us that they were that kind of Amendment, offer no opposition and no debate. I cannot imagine a more intensive effort on the part of my hon. Friends and myself to try to help the Government to improve this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will rise and say that he accepts this proposed new Clause, and is prepared to accept all the other Amendments, pages of them, which we do not want to discuss. I am not saying we agree with them on their merits. We are merely putting them into one document, so that the unfortunate people who have to study these things do not have to refer to two, three or four documents.
We realise that this is a field in which this is most important, because here we are dealing with the wages of agricultural workers. If, in the future, any one of them wants to know for himself exactly what his rights are, and is not necessarily prepared to accept the views given to him by outside people—maybe even by his union representatives—he has to get hold of various Acts which are still the law. In the nature of things, the agricultural worker does not necessarily live within easy reach of a public library, nor does he particularly want to spend his earnings—

Mr. Stubbs: He gets it from the post office, not the library.

Captain Crookshank: The post office does not provide Acts of Parliament. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, unless there has been a very great change in post offices since I was Postmaster-General. A post office sells almost anything, but it does not sell Acts of Parliament. I am merely saying, the agricultural community wants to know exactly what the law is. If they have to look up three, four, five or six Acts of Parliament, they are perhaps not in such an easy position to do it as those who live nearer to public libraries and places of reference.

Mr. Gooch: The best men for that are in the unions.

Captain Crookshank: I made that exception, but I said they might not always be ready to accept that advice and might prefer to look at the words for themselves. That is the short point. As far as I know, all these Amendments, as we have drafted them, are merely designed to insert into this Bill what is the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman can accept my assurance—and I know I can give it on behalf of my hon. Friends—that if he will do that we shall move all these Amendments formally, and not waste any time in the House today. It will make the published Act, when it receives the Royal Assent something much more valuable to the agricultural community than it is today. I cannot conceive of any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should object to this proposal. There is nothing but a conciliatory attitude on our part, wanting to be helpful; and I simply cannot see why he should not accept the proposal. I hope, therefore, very much that he will do so. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that, as I indicated at the beginning, I have not said anything about the merits of the new Clause. I am not concerned about that at the moment. It is the law anyhow. I am merely offering this series of Amendments to the Minister and the House in order to make the Bill, when it becomes an Act, far clearer, and to sweep away any difficulties that there may be here in legislation by reference. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, we are adopting—we ourselves have previously made the point—a very sensible suggestion made by one of his own supporters, the hon. Member for North-West Hull.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On this matter I should like to raise a point of Order. I listened with great interest to the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), in which he gave an explanation why there appear on the Order Paper all these new Clauses and Amendments which are taken bodily from some previous Act which is operative at the present moment. The point I want to raise is this. The present Bill before the House is not a consolidating Bill. The character and the scope of a


consolidating Bill are entirely different; because there one is restricted in the area of Debate, and so on. My submission therefore is that it is an abuse of parliamentary machinery to put down on the Order Paper new Clauses and Amendments, as we have here, which are lifted bodily from an Act which already has statutory effect and is in operation at the present moment. What these new Clauses and this large number of Amendments seek to do is to repeat, quite redundantly, the law as it at present stands. That is an absurdity. The idea of the Opposition asking this House to Debate and re-enact something which is already on the Statute Book must be nonsense. First of all, it is unnecessary.

Captain Crookshank: We have done it already.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Just a moment. First of all, it is unnecessary; secondly, it is duplication; and thirdly, it is a dreadful waste of time and a dreadful waste of paper. My submission is that, on these grounds among others, it is an abuse of the machinery of Parliament. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at page 134, the Clause set down there runs nearly the whole length of that page, and then it runs in to half of page 135. The rest of the page and the whole of the next page and page 137 that follows are all material to be found in already existing Acts of Parliament. The same applies to various other new Clauses and Amendments that follow. The new Schedules on pages 145 to 148 are of the same character. They are merely repetition of what is already in existence, either in the Act of 1924 which refers to England and Wales, or the Act of 1937 which refers to Scotland; and my submission is that not one of these new Clauses or Amendments, that is taken from and merely repeats provisions in already existing Acts and which are simply the material and the verba ipsissima, f those Statutes is in Order, and cannot be debated under the present Bill and is an abuse of Parliamentary machinery.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very good speech against the proposal made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), but he certainly was not raising any point of Order. If there is any point of Order

at all, it is that he is criticising my selection of this new Clause, and that, I am sure, was certainly not his intention.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: As a Member who does not belong to the official Opposition I wish to add my word before the Minister replies, hoping that the Minister will be able to accept the proposal that has been suggested by the Opposition. I would add one further reason for his doing so, in addition to the admirable reasons which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave. That is that a widespread desire has been expressed that agriculture, if not taken altogether out of party politics, should, at any rate, not be treated in a contemptuous way between the various political parties. This gesture of the Opposition, in making the suggestion that this Bill should be turned into a consolidating Bill, seems to me to be the very thing in which both the Government and the Opposition, and those of us who are independent of those august bodies, could join together. It seems the common sense thing to do. Not only the agricultural worker but the farmer wants to know what the law is, as do all those concerned with the industry, and it would be a good thing to provide for them, in a sensible and commonsense way, a statement of what the law relative to agricultural wages, is. Therefore, I add a humble word to the Opposition's plea that the Minister should adopt this course

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): After the very sweet reasonableness of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) it is rather difficult to resist their plea. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman truly said that the object of these new Clauses, with the Schedules and a host of consequential Amendments, is, in effect, to complete the consolidation of the 1924 and 1937 Acts along with this present Bill. But, as I explained in Committee, I was obliged to resist the general consolidation proposals. I had no objection to accepting a small measure of consolidation, which produced the present Clauses 4 and 11; that was merely picking up outlying bits of legislation and transferring them to this Bill. That can be put down to my sweet reasonableness


in responding to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen upstairs. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows—none better— that legislating and consolidating at the same time, is totally contrary to every precedent in this country. Having been in Opposition so long myself—for some thing like 18 or 19 years—facing Bills which sought to amend legislation by reference, I have myself had occasion to rail against legislation by reference and at times I have been driven nearly mad by it. So, I am not out of sympathy with the general idea. But, I repeat, it has always been thought, in this country, that the best policy is, first to pass amending legislation, and then to consolidate as quickly as possible afterwards.
I should like to congratulate hon. Members on their assiduity during the Parliamentary Recess, and on the large measure of success they have achieved in what has been irreverently termed their "paste and scissors" effort. On careful examination of the various new Clauses plus the consequential Amendments, I am satisfied that they would not do what hon. and right hon. Members desire, for I find that these Clauses and Amendments are not really complete. For example, if we were to repeal what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman described as the keystone—the 1924 Act—by consolidating at this moment, certain transitional measures would be required. The Agricultural Wages Board would have to be completely re-appointed, and all county wage committees would have to be re-appointed, for until this had been done the Acts would cease to operate. It seems to me, therefore, that while the desire may be very good it is inconsistent with all precedent in this House. The fact is that these new Clauses and Amendments would not nearly meet the case, despite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that they would not object to certain Amendments being made in another place, and despite the fact that he gave his word of honour that he and his hon. Friends would stand by whatever was done. I cannot disagree with him at all on that point; I should always be prepared to take the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's word for anything, but I have sat in this House for something over 20 years and I have never known a period when the leaders of the Government or the leaders of the Opposition could speak absolutely

for every one of the Members sitting on the back benches.
Therefore, while I am not out of sympathy with the general proposal, or with the urgent need for consolidating as quickly as possible, I feel that I cannot agree to the suggestion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman makes that I should accept all the new Clauses, Schedules and consequential Amendments on the Order Paper. I will, however, give this assurance to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and to hon. Members sitting opposite. The Government are at this moment actively considering whether they can provide themselves with a machine to expedite and facilitate consolidation legislation. I want to make it plain that I can give no definite guarantee, but I am very hopeful indeed that we shall be able to get a consolidation Measure for this particular Bill in the next Parliamentary Session. With that assurance, first that the Government recognise the need for consolidating as quickly as possible, and secondly that I am convinced that steps will be taken—I am hopeful, to put it no higher than that, that in the next Parliamentary Session we shall get a consolidation Bill—I hope that they will not feel disposed to press this Clause, but will take my word for it that as soon as consolidation legislation can be produced it will be brought before the House.

Captain Crookshank: While the right hon. Gentelman says he would accept my word on what we would hope to do, may I say that I accept his word that he hopes that next year this may be done, but quite frankly I do not think it is good enough. Here are all these Clauses, perfectly adequate to the purpose, and I cannot imagine why he should not accept them. He says that this is without precedent. That may be, but on matters of this kind I think that the initiative, in the very nature of the case, must come from the Opposition, because the Government expose too many flanks if they bring into a Bill a lot of Clauses re-enacting the law. If, on the other hand, the Opposition are anxious to be helpful in consolidating at once instead of in 12 months' time, I think it is a very poor response on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot do it because it is contrary to precedent, or because some of these Clauses do not fully cover the case. We think they do cover the case,


but we would not object to any alterations which are necessary either now or hereafter, and I am very disappointed indeed that our efforts to help make this Bill, when it is passed, a really good and complete Act are not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. I feel very much in

clined, if my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with me, to register our protest in the Lobby at this somewhat ungenerous treatment of a really wise suggestion. Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 244.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
4.26 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hollis, M. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hurd, A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bennett, Sir P.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Birch, Nigel
Kerr, Sir J Graham
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lambert, Hon, G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Byers, Frank
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, T. L,
- Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
MacAudrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
 Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Co.bee'. Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macphsrson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W Y.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Digby, S. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Drayson, G. B.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Wadsworth, G


Gammans, L. D.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, D.


Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Nicholson, G.
Watt, Sir G. S Harvie


Graham-Little, Sir E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Grant, Lady
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Wiloughby de Eresby, Lord


Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
Pickthorn, K.
Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.



Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Prescott, Stanley
Mr. Drewe and


Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Commander Agnew.




NOES


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exoh'ge)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Brook. D. (Halifax)
Cook, T. F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, George (Belper)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Attewell, H.C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daggar, G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Awbery, S. S.
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Ayles, W. H.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancrat, S.W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Balfour, A.
Carmichael, James
Deer, G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Chamberlain, R. A
Dobbie, W


Barstow, P G.
Champion, A. J.
Dye, S.


Barton, C.
Chater, D.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Battley, J. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bechervaise, A. E
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Benson, G.
Cluse, W. S.
Ewart, R.


Berry, H.
Cobb, F. A.
Fairhurst, F.


Bing, G. H C.
Cocks, F. S.
Farthing, W. J.


Binns, J.
Coldrick, W
Field, Capt. W.J.


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P.
Foot, M. M,


Boardman, H.
Collindridge, F.
Forman, J. C.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Collins, V. J
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)




Gallacher, W.
Mack, J. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibbins, J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Gibson, C. W
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Gilzean, A..
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Cornett)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Solley, L. J.


Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Sorensen, R. W


Goodrich, H. E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Grey, C. F.
Mathers, G.
Stamford, W.


Grierson, E.
Medland, H. M.
Stephen, C.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)
Mikardo, Ian
Stross, Dr. B.


Gunter, R. J.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Stubbs, A. E.


Guy, W. H
Monslow, W
Swingler, S.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S
Symonds, A. L.


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hall, W. 8.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Murray,, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hardy, E A
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Harrison, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noe|-Buxton, Lady
Thurtle, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, T.
Timmons, J.


Hicks, G.
Oldfield, W. H.
Tolley, L.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


House, G.
Parkin, B T.
Usborne, Henry


Hoy, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Walkden, E.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rushoime)
Perrins, W.
Walker, G. H.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) *
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Iiving, W J.
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Warbey, W. N.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Price, M. Philips
Watkins, T. E.


John, W.
Pritt, D. N
Watson, W M.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Keenan, W
Pursey, Cmdr. H
West, D. G.


Kenyon, C
Randall, H. E.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Kinley, J.
Ranger, J
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kirby, B. V.
Rees-Williams, D. R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Kirkwood, D.
Reeves, J.
Wilkes, L.


Lang, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lavers, S.
Rhodes, H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willis, E


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sargood, R.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Logan, D. G.
Scollan, T.
Wise, Major F. J


Longden, F.
Scott-Elliot, W
Woodburn, A


Lyne. A. W.
Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr E. A. A
Wyatt, W.


McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville
Yates, V F.


McAllister, G.
Shurmer, P.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)



McGhee, H. G
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer to Agricultural Wages Board of power to fix, cancel or vary minimum rates of agricultural wages.)

4.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from "Act," to "to," in line 8.
The Bill was amended in Standing Committee, and a new Clause resulted, which is now Clause 4 of the amended Bill. It embodies those parts of the provisions of Section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, which are to be retained. In view of this consolidation, reference to the Act in

Clause 1 is no longer necessary, and to that extent this Amendment is consequential.

Captain Crookshank: I have no comment to make on this Amendment, except to say that it cuts the ground from under the right hon. Gentleman in regard to what was said in our previous discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "shall," to "and," in line 16, and to insert:
have regard to the economic condition of the agricultural industry or any section thereof.


We had some discussion in Committee on this point, but at that time we had not the benefit of having seen the new Agriculture Bill, which reinforces our case. The words which we suggest should be included in this Measure are inserted in the new Bill. We feel very strongly that it would be right and proper to give some definite guidance to the Agricultural Wages Board to help them in the work they have to perform. We feel it of great importance that the Board should be given guidance, and that they should consider the economic position of the industry when making up their minds in regard to any questions arising out of wages.
There are two questions I should like to ask the Minister in this regard, because, as I understand it, reference was made to the economic position of the industry both in the 1940 Act and in the Scottish Act of 1937. Now we have again the inclusion of these words, although I admit that it is in a rather different context, in the new Bill, when discussing a special review dealing with prices. Why has the Minister left them out of the present Measure? During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman implied that the reason for omitting any reference to economic conditions in the industry was that we had an assured market for agricultural produce, and guaranteed prices up to the beginning of 1950. That may be all very well so far as agricultural products are concerned, but it certainly does not affect horticulture, which has no guaranteed prices. We therefore feel that it is in the interests of the industry and the Wages Board, that some reference should be made to this question. At the end of it all it is the farmer who has to pay the wages, and there must be some relationship between the wages he pays, and the economic conditions of the industry.
There is one other point, in connection with the Wages Council Act of 1945. I understand that the Measure we have before us today follows very closely the principle of that Act. In the 1945 Act, no reference is made to economic conditions of the industry. In the view of my hon. Friends on this side, and myself, we cannot agree with the view that there has been no mention of the economic position

in this Bill because it is not mentioned in the 1945 Act, because agriculture is in an entirely different position from that of any other industry. The Minister, with his special knowledge, must realise that it is impossible to legislate for agriculture on exactly the same lines as for our other great industries. You cannot turn off, or close down, agriculture at leisure. It depends very largely upon weather conditions and, still more on a long-range constructive policy. In asking the Minister to accept this Amendment, I believe it is right that the country as a whole, and the consuming public in particular, should realise that the prices of home-produced foodstuffs must depend, very largely, upon the wages that are paid in the industry. There is no difference of opinion whatever on the broad principle that we want to see craftsmen in the agricultural industry brought up to the standard of craftsmen in other industries. We are all agreed that the standard of agricultural wages should be as high as is reasonably possible. Great advances have been made in this direction during recent years, and it is not the wish of any of us on this side of the House, that we should go backwards on our wages policy in this industry. But it seems common sense that we should, at all times, draw to the attention of the Wages Board, and the public as a whole, the fact that the economic position of the industry does matter in relation to what agricultural craftsmen may receive in wages. It is for that reason that we thought it right to move this Amendment, and I therefore hope that the Minister will meet us on this point.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are moving this Amendment because we want to give a direction to the Wages Board when they are dealing with the question of wages. The one thing we must have in the industry, is confidence in our future. If we have not got it, we cannot produce, because production is a matter of long-term policy. If the Wages Board fixes wages without paying due regard to economic conditions in the industry we shall have no confidence in the future. We have had our confidence shaken in the past, by a letter which came from the Ministry, in which they said:


Moreover, it is expected that whilst prices of farm produce will tend to fall, labour, will remain a comparatively high expense.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman say that I wrote that from the Ministry?

Mr. Baldwin: It came from the Ministry.

Mr. Williams: I should hate that form of misrepresentation. The statement now being quoted by the hon. Member was raised in a Parliamentary Question, to which I made the appropriate reply. I disowned completely the content of the letter which the hon. Member is now quoting.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister in any way, but I was given to understand that the letter went from the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Williams: It was disowned by me, standing at this Box, and replying to a Question.

Mr. Baldwin: Is it admitted that it went from the Ministry? That is the sort of thing that shakes our confidence. I thought this was not a party question at all, but that we should give this direction to the Wages Board so that they should take into account the economic position in the industry.' It is recognised by the Ministry, in the new Agriculture Bill, that the Measure will stand or fall by the prices that are paid to the fanner. This Bill will do likewise. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Agricultural Wages Act was first placed on the Statute Book, in 1924, no direction such as we suggest was given, with the result that wages were fixed without any relation to the economic position of the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That, apparently, is not accepted, but if that is not so, why was it that the result of fixing those wages led to 10,000 agricultural labourers leaving the land during the next 20 years? It is because we want to protect the wages of the agricultural labourer that we are asking for this direction to be taken into account. Unless it is taken into account the agricultural worker will be in a difficult position. This matter was argued in Committee, when I could not understand why the vote went against our Amendment. Several Members spoke as if they were in favour of the Amendment, and

then voted against it. For instance, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) said:
I am opposed to this AmendmentgThere have been rapid strides in recent times in economic conditions in this industry, and I think we are safe now in viewing the industry from the economic point of view, and in fixing wages upon the prices obtaining from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th December, 1946, c. 21.]
Yet the hon. Member voted against the Amendment. We agree with every word he said. If we are to keep agricultural wages as we want them to be, we must have farm prices put right at the same time.

Mr. T. Williams: The first thing that will be noticed about this Amendment is that it sets out to delete the following words:
The Agricultural Wages Board shall not be limited to the consideration of any particular matters.
In other words, while we think that the Board ought to be able to consider any matter, in fact take into account all relevant factors, this Amendment proposes to limit the consideration by the Board to a single factor, which we think is inimical to the interests which we all have in mind. The second thing is that it attempts to import into the Bill the words:
have regard to the economic condition of the agricultural industry.
Hon. Members will have observed that in line 16, the Bill itself sets out to repeal Section 2 (4) of the 1924 Act, which was a limiting factor to the Wages Board. Quite contrary to what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has said, there was a limiting factor in the 1924 Act. If he will look at Section 2 (4) he will see just what those words are. I need not quote them and waste the time of the House. They had to have regard to the nature of the occupation of the persons to be catered for, namely agriculture. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill deletes Subsection (4) of Section 2 of the 1924 Act. Therefore, it cannot be true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that tens of thousands of agricultural workers left their jobs because wages were being fixed higher than farmers could pay. Actually the hon. Gentleman must know, having been so closely associated with agriculture for such a long period of time, that between 1921 and 1939 we lost nearly 250,000 agricultural workers. The economic conditions of the


industry were so poor, the wages were so low and so miserable that we lost that army of skilled farm workers; and we badly needed them in 1946. But it was not because they were paid high wages. It was because they were paid very low wages, but that is not an adverse reflection upon the farmer, whose position perhaps would not permit him to pay high wages.

Mr. Baldwin: The reason for those low wages was the low prices paid to the farmer, and we want to relate prices to wages.

Mr. T. Williams: I will not go into the highways or byways as to which Government was responsible. All I would say is that we were not in office from 1924 to 1929 or from 1931 to 1939. I leave the rest to the imagination of hon. Members.
In reply to the mover of the Amendment, I would say that we thought in introducing this Bill that the words in the 1924 Act were wholly inappropriate at this stage. We recognise, of course, that the economic condition of the industry must be considered by the Board when they are dealing with wage questions, either for an increase or for a decrease, but they must. not concern themselves exclusively with one consideration. They must take into account all the factors relevant to the employment, to the individual industry and to the industries of this country taken as a whole. If any hon. Member has any doubt as to whether the economic condition of the industry will be taken into account or not, it must be because he is not aware of the constitution of the Agricultural Wages Board. I could never conceive eight representatives of the farmers attending Wage Board meetings and not producing evidence to show the economic condition of the industry. If the farmers were to forget the economic condition of the industry, it is quite conceivable that the eight representatives of the agricultural workers would remind them of it. If all 16 were to forget, the farmers and the farm workers, at least there are, five impartial members who, I am quite confident, would not allow decisions to be taken before the economic condition of the industry had actually been considered.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that there was a difference between agriculture and most other industries, and, therefore, we ought not to pursue the line of the Wages Councils Act, 1945, too closely. I cannot agree with the hon. Member more. There is a vast difference between agriculture and most other industries, but the policy laid down for the Wages Councils seems to me to be just as clear, just as definite, and just as necessary as that which we are trying to lay down in this Bill. We want Wages Councils, and we want this Agricultural Wages Board to take into account all relevant considerations. The Wages Council is not informed that, when it is going to consider the question of wages for steel workers, iron workers textile workers, or any other workers, the economic conditions of the steel industry or textile industry or some other industry must be taken into account or that they should be a single limiting factor. I think that it is not wise to give positive direction to a Board of this description, but give them the power to take into account all and every factor relevant to the wages level of those engaged in agriculture. That form of guidance on one thing means, of course, a limiting factor, and I am quite convinced, having given this matter very careful consideration that there ought to be no limiting factor, being assured that the Wages Board would never for one moment contemplate reaching decisions, without having due regard to the economic condition in the agricultural industry.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister of Agriculture has put forward quite an ingenious argument for rejecting this Amendment, but the line which he has taken does not really deal with the case put from this side of the House. His argument is based on the proposition that the Wages Board should take into account all relevant factors, without specifying the most important relevant factor, namely, the general economic condition of the industry at any given time. We all agree, on both sides of the House, in wishing to secure for the farm worker the high wage which his skill deserves, but that wage cannot possibly be divorced from the prices which the farmer, who pays the wage, receives for his produce off his farm.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Alpass: Ought not the prices to be altered?

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I will come to that point later. This Bill relating only to wages cannot be put into a watertight compartment. It must be taken in conjunction with the general provisions of the bigger Bill which we shall be discussing shortly. I remind the House that Clause I of that Bill seeks to secure production at minimum prices, consistent with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and farm workers alike, and an adequate return on capital invested. Those are very sound principles, but I do not think they can possibly be implemented if agricultural wages are to be fixed without specific reference to the economic conditions of the industry. I repeat that the farmer can only pay wages out of the prices he receives for his produce. Moreover, in the farming industry, unlike other industries, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dug-dale) has already pointed out, there is the inescapable time lag, a period of anything up to 12 months, before the farmer receives any cash return as a result of the wages he pays to his employees. I know that, in Committee, the Minister made considerable play with the fact that the farmer is assured of guaranteed prices until 1950, but that will not inspire very much confidence unless the farmer is equally certain that the level of wages will be related to the guaranteed price.
If the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) thinks that it does not matter whether a rise in wages is not related to prices in general because a rise in wages can always be followed by a rise in the guaranteed prices, let me remind him that the consumer has some say in the matter. I ask him also to bear in mind that we are already paying £400 million a year in subsidies to keep down the prices of food to the consumer. I would further remind him of a point that has already been made from this side of the House, namely, that although the Agricultural Wages Bill covers those who work in horticulture, there is no guaranteed price for horticultural products. Finally, if the Minister wishes to instil into the agricultural industry, as I am sure he does, that confidence which is so essential both to farmers and farm workers, I hope he Will confess that it was only by a slip of the tongue in the

Second Reading Debate that he said that wages must not be tied up to any price-fixing system. From the economic point of view, I think that remark must have caused some qualms to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, at long last, is beginning to discover—and certainly we shall bring this to his attention very often from this side of the House—that the real value of wages is not so much in the amount paid, but in their purchasing power.

Mr. Stubbs: I am a little at a loss to understand this Amendment moved and supported by hon. Members opposite. Do you really mean by it that, before proposing a wage, the Agricultural Wages Board shall have an inquest on the prices operating in the industry? Is that what you really mean?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member must remember that when he uses the word "you," he is referring to the Chair, and not to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Stubbs: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been a member of a wages board since 1937, and I have never known an occasion when the farmers' representatives on the board have not put forward, from their point of view, the economic conditions operating in the industry. Whether it was a question of wheat prices, stock prices, or the prices of almost any other commodity which they sell, they have always put their position before the board. Moreover, will not the representatives of the National Farmers' Union on the Agricultural Wages Board know the economic conditions of the industry? From what has been said, anybody would think that those representatives would come to the board empty headed, and not knowing anything about the industry. Of course, they are experts at the job, and know conditions in the agricultural industry. What about the statistics supplied by the Minister and the Universities? There is all the information that is wanted, unless this Amendment is meant to be a means of delaying things, so that before any increased wage can be given to the farm workers, all the economic conditions of the agricultural industry have to be looked into. We have had many years of terribly low wages, which were a disgrace to those who paid them, and a disgrace to those who received them. We have been through all


that, and in those times hon. Members used to argue in the same way as they are now doing. I hope the Amendment will be defeated, because there are now guaranteed prices, and we know what are the economic conditions in the industry from time to time.

Mr. Turton: I do not think the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) put the difference between us on this matter quite clearly. What we are asking is that the system of wording advised by the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, and adopted in 1940, a system that raised wages from 35s. to the present level of 80s., should be continued. The hon. Member is advocating that the usual official terminology that "all relevant factors be taken into consideration" be put, I believe for the first, or perhaps the second time, into an Act of Parliament. I believe that the 1940 wording, as moved in the Amendment by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), is right. If one does not have regard to the economic conditions in agriculture, the five independent members will be able to tell the workers and the farmers that they have not got to pay attention to agriculture, but have to look wider to the conditions in other industries. That is the grave danger that I see. I think we shall be in very difficult economic times in the future, and I think we should not tolerate agriculture remaining at the bottom of the ladder. For that reason I think it vitally important that wages should be tied up into the price fixing structure.
If we have the general provision that all relevant factors are to be taken into consideration we shall, I fear, get a certain hostility to agricultural wages and prices going up when other wages and prices may, owing to the economic crisis, be falling down. That, I think, would be extremely bad for the agricultural industry. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) laughs and twiddles his toes, but it is not really quite so laughable a matter as he appears to think. It is clear that there is in this country a very grave crisis in production; there may well be, as the hon. Member knows, a very grave continued shortage of food in the future. Therefore, it is in the Government's interests to do what

they can to attract workers and farmers into agriculture by giving good prices and good wages, and thus save this country from grave shortage and, perhaps, starvation in the future. If we tie it up as the Minister is doing in very nebulous official language, I fear that the price-fixing machinery—which I believe to be excellent—will be vitiated by this very fact.
Wages and prices must be tied together, but if, later in this Session, we are to consider a Bill which orders a special review when economic conditions in agriculture change, then it is important that in this Measure plain words should be used so that we have a clear connection between wages and prices in agriculture. If we establish the principle that wages and prices in agriculture must depend on wages and prices generally in other industries then, because we are only a minority in this country, we shall find that agricultural wages and prices will be at the bottom of the economic ladder. I hope very much that the Minister, who I know has the good of the agricultural industry at heart, will reconsider this matter and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gooch: There are three main reasons why the farm worker feels very happy about this Bill. The first is that one of the chief values of this Bill lies in the permanent transference of wage fixing powers from the county wages committees to the Central Wages Board. Another feature which makes the farm worker very happy is the new procedure which is to be followed in making orders. The third has a bearing on the object of the Amendment now before the House. It is that the Central Wages Board will no longer be tied down to certain factors in determining wages.
I hope the House will reject the Amendment because it has been made very clear by speeches from this side, that the economic position of the industry is not overlooked, either at meetings of the county wages committees or at those of the Central Wages Board. There are enough experts at all those meetings to ensure that the farmer's case is put fairly and adequately. I urge the House not to tie wages to prices but to keep to the Clause already in the Bill and allow the Central Wages Board to take into consideration all relevant factors in determining what the wage should be. The most


important point, and one which I think has been overlooked by hon. Members opposite, is the human side of this business. It is not always just a question of what can be paid in the form of wages that has to be looked into, but one of human beings. When we were down to 25s. in Norfolk, and when the farm workers had to go on strike to prevent the wage becoming lower and it was argued that the rate should be 18s. 11d. a week—I could never understand why this was not made up to the full shilling —did hon. Members opposite argue that they would be prepared to vote for fixing wages at 18s. 11d.? No, the human need had to be taken into consideration. Whilst it has been declared that all these points will be before the committees and the Central Wages Board in the matter of farm prices, I do urge that the Board should not be tied down in this respect but should be able to take into consideration all matters which have a direct bearing on the question, and certainly that they should be in a position to address themselves to the question of human need.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: It seems to me that we are concerned here with two very different interpretations. While the Minister has argued that the economic condition of agriculture is one factor which ought to be and will be taken into consideration, it is nevertheless only one factor. In my opinion there are many other factors which ought to be considered. For example, there is the question of the rates of wages ruling in other industries, which certainly ought to be taken into consideration. Then there is the question as to what is a living wage—whether 18s. 11d. or the modern equivalent is a wage which we can countenance on any grounds being paid to any worker in this country at the present time. Thus, as I say, there are many factors which should be considered, and to put in just this one and give it the prominence of being the only factor concerned would be altogether wrong.
I have listened very carefully to speeches by hon. Members of the official Opposition who are often very clear minded on these matters, but I have been unable to get their arguments straight on this occasion. I agree that prices and wages in agriculture must be related, but this seems to me to be the wrong place to say so. The place where I want to say

it is in the annual February price review. I want to say then that unless prices are on a proper level wages will be too low and we shall lose workers from the industry and shall not get any food. That is the argument which I want to put, and that is the chain of connection which I want the Government to have in mind in fixing prices. I could understand the argument of hon. Members above the Gangway if agriculture were profitable at the present time. If it were possible to fix wages much higher than in other industries then there would be a reason for putting in this Clause. But since wages are still lower in agriculture than in other industries we should only be keeping them pegged down by adding this Clause and, quite frankly, that is what I want to avoid. For both those general reasons I should be against this Amendment now. With regard to wages generally in agriculture, I think we should remember that we are fixing a minimum only, and that there are all kinds of arguable reasons why wages should vary. It could be argued that they should be higher where the land was more profitable, and lower where it was less so. I feel that unless we set out to do this and provide in this Bill that all the factors ought to be taken into account, there is a danger that we may do the industry harm.

Mr. Charles Williams: When I first looked at this Amendment I wondered on what grounds the Minister would turn it down. It became obvious to me, when I first looked at it, that the Minister's first line of defence in rejecting it would be that it would be a limiting Amendment. That is interesting because so many of the limiting Amendments proposed by our Front Bench are rejected on the ground that they are wrong. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is in this Amendment what has been pointed out by two or three speakers— that it would be too limiting in that it would only direct the boards to have regard to the economic factor. I say quite frankly, as has been shown by some on this side of the House and also by hon. Members on the other side, that we must have regard to the human factor. I also say that the whole question, as the hon. Member for Northern Cumberland (Mr. Roberts) said—as far as what he said was understandable—must have some direct relation to wages and prices. Up to that point I should like to see the original


words kept in, but having got to that point, I look at the words which we on this side of the House propose to insert. I think it essential, especially after the speech the Minister made when he certainly gave the whole case away, that somewhere, it should be laid down clearly that the economic factor should be considered.
The Minister took the line that, of course, it would be considered, but the fact that he has refused to allow it to go into the Bill will make it perfectly possible for it to be sidestepped. The mere fact that the Minister gave the suggestion his nominal blessing, but would not put it in the Bill, only draws the attention of the industry and of the committees to the fact that, ultimately economics must have some relationship to wages. For that reason I had hoped that the Minister might possibly, if he could not accept our proposal now, look at it before the Bill goes to another place, and perhaps with some slight alteration he might be prepared to accept it. He could put in the words "shall have full regard to" or words to that effect so as to emphasise the point he made, namely, that the committees are to have full regard to the economic circumstances. If the Amendment could be partially accepted in that way it would seem to me that the Minister would be going a considerable way to meet a point which has a very great deal of support.
When I first saw this Amendment I thought to myself that it was an Amendment which the Minister must accept. We have been told within the last 36 hours in this Chamber, that we must have the most modern and fullest statistics in regard to industry, and we have passed a whole Bill to collect those statistics. Why not, when dealing with a vital industry like agriculture, lay it down that we must have a sound knowledge of the facts of the industry? I would have thought that the arguments used yesterday would have convinced the Minister at once, that this was an Amendment which in no conceivable circumstances, at any rate as far as the second part is concerned, could be left out of the Bill.
I should like to emphasise a point made earlier by one of my hon. Friends, that as far as ordinary farmers are concerned this is comparatively simple from the point of view of their prices for a year or

two. However, that is not the position with regard to horticulture and it certainly is not the position in relation to market gardening. It is possible that by the work of some wild President of the Board of Trade or someone like that, the whole market could be swamped. Indeed, as far as my information goes, an Order is at present almost ready which will injure a great number of workers on the land Certainly it will do much injury in the West Country by completely upsetting our markets for the products of market gardening. As far as horticulture is concerned, therefore, the Minister's argument is not sound, because there is no protection given to the market gardener in regard to prices in the same way that protection is given to the agriculturists. Not that I would take this protection away from agriculturists, but I would point out that market gardening is one of the most progressive sections of the industry and one that absorbs a large body of men, because in recent years it has been a paying proposition.
For this reason I respectfully ask the Minister whether he does not think that he could consider putting something into the Bill that would direct these organisations to have real consideration of the economic side, in the widest possible sense. I do not mean to suggest that that economic consideration should be merely from the farmers' point of view or from the agricultural labourers' point of view. I mean it rather in the widest sense and with regard to other industries as far as wages are concerned. If that were in the Bill on the lines I have suggested, without any limiting of discussion of other factors, I believe that it would be in the best all-round interests of agriculture.

Amendment negatived. CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to learners.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "are," to insert:
under a contract of service and.
The purpose of the Amendment is to clear up doubt which exists in the minds of some hon. Members about the rather conflicting assurances given by the Attorney-General and by the Minister, concerning the position of farm pupils. Our desire is to give effect to the assurances which the Minister gave us. He told us that it was not the intention of


the Government to apply the Clause to pupils who were not under contract of service. That is why we are seeking to insert words to make that point clear. In our view it is unnecessary, and would indeed hamper the pupil as well as the farmer. The pupil is not a worker, in the ordinary sense of the term, but a learner.
Is this pupil to be required to go before the local county wages committee, and be subject to a set of rules and regulations for the short period during which he is learning his job on the farm and when he is, in effect, an apprentice? He will have to learn to milk a cow and to drive a tractor. Such arrangements have been left in the past to be made quite informally between the boy or his parents on the one hand and the farmer on the other. I think the Minister will agree that there is no evidence of exploitation in connection with them and that the arrangements for learners must be left fairly flexible. One man may learn quite quickly and may soon earn a full wage, whereas another may have to carry on for six months or possibly for a year, and it would be perfectly justifiable for the premium to continue.
All who are interested in agriculture wish to see a two-way flow. There always will be village lads who want to go out of farming and out of the rural atmosphere. There will also be a number of town boys who want to go into farming, and I want to see every possible encouragement given to the farmer to take that kind of boy for six months or a year. We should not hamper in any way the flow from the towns into the country. Let us get the town boys who are willing to learn and let us teach them all we can about farming. We shall not encourage that flow if we tie the arrangements up with applications and certificates, and make it necessary for their cases to be considered by the county wages committees. If certificates are given, they may be out of date after three months, and the farmer may have to go back to the committee. He would probably say "Bother it all. It's not worth while taking these boys," and let the matter drop.
This is not a question of exploiting cheap labour. The pupil on a farm justifies some premium being paid on his behalf. By the time a pupil has learnt to milk a cow he may have spoilt one or two cows, and by the time he has learnt to drive a tractor he may have driven one or two

tractors into ditches. Our purpose is to make quite sure that no hindrance is put in the way of a farmer who is prepared to take pupils and that it is quite clear there will be no nonsense about getting a certificate where the lad is not under a contract of service. The Minister gave an assurance on this point in the Committee, and I hope that he will now be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is not only the farm pupil who is affected by the Clause. When the Bill was first printed there was considerable doubt among the members of certain professions and societies, in particular the Land Agents' Society, as to whether their pupils would be affected by the Bill. I have been such a pupil myself some years ago. The Minister will know that besides the professional and office side of land agents "work, there is also the practical farming side which has to be learnt. Whether hon. Members like that form of professional training or not, we must accept the fact that it exists. There is some need to clear up the doubt whether this form of training is covered under the Bill, a doubt that will continue to exist unless the Amendment is accepted. Another large class coming into this question is men who are undergoing vocational training. I did succeed, after having asked the question several times in Committee, in ascertaining that men undergoing vocational training were not affected by the Bill, because they are not under a contract of service. I am sure the Minister will agree that it would be very much easier for all concerned if the few simple words proposed in the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, so as to clear up doubts, not only now but for all time.

Mr. Collick: I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put down the Amendment under a misapprehension. To get its correct meaning one must refer to the principal Act It must be borne in mind that the only rates of wages that the Wages Board will have power to fix under the principal Act and under the Bill, are rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture. Therefore we must turn to the principal Act to get the definition of workers employed in agriculture. We shall find it clearly set out in the Act of


1924. It says that the expression "employment" means
employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship.
Therefore, since that is the definition in the main Act, the Bill applies only to those who are under either a contract of service or a contract of apprenticeship. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: Of course, the Minister is right in referring to the principal Act. That is just one of the cases which we have discussed earlier. This little Amendment ought to be described, to that extent perhaps, as a consolidating Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has just read out the definition which is contained in the principal Act, but we are fortified because we remember what the Minister said in Committee. He said, specifically:
If no contract of service exists the person concerned does not come within the meaning of the Bill.
Later he said:
We are trying to preserve those under contract of service from entering into this very bad arrangement.
He also said:
The Bill deals only with a person who has entered a contract of service with an employer.
Having said that three times, his final words were:
I hope that that is clear enough."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th December, 1346; col. 123.]
I quite agree that if the Minister says something and the same thing oddly enough, three times, it is clear what he means. Fortified now by a reference to the previous Act and the law of the land, I still come back to my hon. Friend's view that it will be very much simpler, in a Clause dealing with learners—a new phrase and a new idea being conveyed into practice—that it should be made clear also in the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister seems to be so reluctant on a matter which he says he hopes is clear enough to us. I hope, since this is not the final stage of the Bill, that he will think again and put in this little bit of consolidation, at least as a sop to us for the gallant attempt we have made to make the Bill better and clearer.

Mr. Baldwin: Is it clear that an articled pupil who is not receiving wages does not come under the Wages Act? Or is he under a contract of apprenticeship?

Mr. Collick: No, certainly not, unless the pupil is under a contract of service or a contract of apprenticeship.

Mr. Baldwin: Does that mean a contract of service without cash? These pupils are under a contract with their instructor. Does it mean that a pupil who pays a premium is under a contract of apprenticeship, and therefore comes under the Bill?

Mr. T. Williams: No.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 4, line I, to leave out from "may," to "vary," in line 2, and to insert:
on the application of the worker or the employer.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the wages committee cannot suddenly vary the conditions of a certificate, after granting it, and to limit the power of variation to cases where the employer or the worker wishes such variation. A certificate may have been granted under certain conditions. Under the Clause it will be possible for a wages committee to come along, right out of the blue, with a variation of conditions which have already been agreed upon. In the Standing Committee an hon Member called this a contract between the farmer and the pupil, and he was corrected by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and informed that it was a contract between the farmer and the committee. Under the Subsection as it stands, the whole thing can suddenly be changed almost over-night. It is a very strange form of contract if the whole business can be changed after a farmer and a worker have agreed upon the conditions imposed by a wages committee. It would be only sensible that the two partners to the contract should be allowed to make application for any variation which is required. It should not be possible to change the whole thing without reference to either party when they have agreed to the conditions and are working happily. Surely the contract or certificate when granted should contain all that is reasonable and should then stand


as the agreement entered into unless either party—the farmer or the worker —asks for a variation?
We have put down this Amendment in order to clear up the position. Speaking from memory, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman opposite in Standing Committee put forward reasons why he retained the word "otherwise. I think he said there might be changes in regard to technical education and facilities of that nature in the intervening period. But surely the people who are concerned in these matters would, themselves, become aware of them and would apply to the committee for a variation if it were desired? It is the arbitrary nature of the Clause that seems to me and my hon. Friends to raise needless uncertainty in the minds of farmers. Farmers are not as keen to take on pupils as some people imagine, and we must do everything we can to generate confidence, rather than promote lack of confidence. For these reasons, we have put down this Amendment in order to limit these powers to an application by the farmer or the worker as the case may be.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) has said, that if we are to get pupils on the land, we should not leave anything vague and uncertain. Both the pupil and the farmer dislike the uncertainty of suddenly having a Minister coming along and changing the whole position. As far as the word "otherwise '"is concerned, there is an educational difficulty which is fairly clear, although I think it might be got over in some other way. If a contract has only a short time to run—say three or six months—it is rather difficult to break that up, because of some educational or other matter. If that uncertainty is always to overhang the contract, we shall find the existing reluctance to take on pupils rather accentuated, and I am sure the Minister does not wish to do that.
The words which it is proposed to insert will give equal opportunity to both sides to make an application, and from that point of view, there can be no great objection to those words. The words we propose to leave out are of a rather in-

decisive nature, I hope the Government may think on this occasion that the words we suggest are a little more decisive and will remove the anxiety which is aroused by such words in a Bill and the lack of decision to which they must lead. The words we propose to insert are much clearer and should be more acceptable to everyone.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I am a little surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have returned to the fray with this proposal. I should have thought that the explanation and the concession given by my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee would have satisfied them. It seems to me that a committee should have the power to vary conditions in the light of changing circumstances. When a committee grants a certificate—as it may very well do—for a period of about three years, it clearly cannot visualise all the circumstances that may develop during that time, and we are thus giving them the power to grant a certificate covering a longish period. We are not thinking only of certificates with three or six months to run. As the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) has already indicated, my right hon. Friend in Committee called attention to the possibility, and indeed the probability, of facilities for technical education being made available. When facilities for technical education, which were not available at the time the certificates were granted, come along and new certificates are being granted to new learners, with a condition that such facilities should be utilised, it would then be necessary to vary the conditions attached to the earlier certificates. I should have thought that the committee in that case might justly wish to vary the conditions on existing certificates. In general, it is desirable that a committee should exercise a running supervision over the circum-stances under which the persons who are the subject of certificates are working, and it would not be sufficient to make the power of variation completely dependent upon the receipt of an application from the worker or the employer concerned.
As I have already indicated, my right hon. Friend made a concession upstairs. It will be remembered that he agreed to provide that there should be no variation of the conditions on a certificate without both the employer and the worker having


first been notified and given an opportunity of making representations. This provision is now in the Bill in Clause 3 (4) and I should have thought that it would meet fully whatever fears the supporters of the Amendment might have. I feel that our case is fully made, and I hope that with that further explanation hon. Members will not persist with this Amendment. I give them an assurance that we have given the matter a lot of thought, and that it is not possible to accept the proposal.

Sir T. Dugdale: The reply of the Joint Under-Secretary is most disappointing because he did not answer the point raised by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). The point we want to make is this: It is perfectly true that the Minister made a concession upstairs to the effect that there should be no change in any contract without notifying either of the parties, but in this Amendment we are trying to prevent an agricultural wages committee from varying any conditions against the will of the worker or employer. The Amendment limits the power to vary the conditions to cases where the employer or workpeople wish to do so; in other words, not to interfere in a situation which is entirely satisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because we believe that if a contract has been made in which neither the employer nor the worker wants any variation, it seems a pity that a wages committee should have the authority to override a contract which everybody is satisfied is working very well. It is that kind of red tape which we believe brings governmental organisations into such bad repute all over the country, namely, unnecessary interference where a scheme or contract is working very well, if for no reason at all the wages committee wants to alter it against the wishes of either the worker or the employer. We quite agree that if the worker or the employer wishes the scheme to be altered, it is right that it should be done with the approval of the wages committee. That is the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Stubbs: May I interrupt? The wages board fixes a definite minimum rate of wages. If, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, a contract can be broken either by the worker or the employer, what becomes of the guaranteed minimum rate?

Mr. T. Williams: I feel I should endeavour to clear up this matter in view of what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). We are not anxious that any wages committee should, without rhyme or reason, interfere with an acceptable contract between employer and employee, neither do we contemplate that such a thing would happen. What we think may happen is that in some parts of the country technical educational facilities will become available which are not available at present. Once new circumstances supervene, it is clear that the county wages committee, if they feel that there is an advantage both to the employer and the learner, should be able to contemplate varying the certificates, but not without consulting each farmer-employer and learner to hear what they have to say. It is rather a stretch of the imagination, therefore, to think that a wages committee would necessarily interfere between farmer and learner where both are happy with the agreement under which they were working. It is because that would not happen in individual cases of that description, but more on the county or general basis, that I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to believe that we are genuinely sincere in our position on this Amendment

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 8.—(Extension of definition of "agriculture.")

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, to leave out "use of land for any garden," and to insert "production of any."
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this and the next three Amendments—in page 6, line 45, leave out "of,"; in line 46, after the second "or," insert "of any," and in page 7, line I, leave out from "not," to end of line 3—were taken together, as they all apply to the same subject.
Clause 8 of the Bill, as framed, covers only those workers engaged in gardens from which either the whole or the greater part of the produce is grown for sale, or supplied for use in competition with commercial suppliers. In Committee a good deal of pressure was brought to bear from both sides insisting that we should widen the scope of this Clause and allow it to embrace all garden workers including


bona fide private gardeners. I thought then that that would be quite inappropriate, for we should be dealing with a form of domestic service. However, I undertook to look at the Clause again and see if we could come nearer to the point raised in Committee without widening the scope of the Clause to include every private garden and gardener.
My aim, therefore, in these Amendments is to cover those who are employed in producing food for sale or for consumption for business purposes. The four Amendments will not unnecessarily widen the scope of the Clause or restrict it too narrowly. It may be that there are cases of large gardens where gardeners are employed almost whole time producing food. There are institutions where large quantities of food are also grown, and where it is proved that persons are employed almost full-time on food it is not unreasonable that they should be brought within the definition of persons coming under this Bill. However, I.do not want to see the purely domestic servant, who perhaps devotes five per cent., ten per cent. or even 20 per cent. of his time to the garden, brought within the four corners of this Measure. The intention of these Amendments, therefore, is to avoid an undue widening of the Clause and making the criterion the production of consumable produce for commercial purposes instead of the use of the land for a garden. These Amendments will bring in a gardener or an estate worker, who is producing consumable produce in competition with commercially produced produce, either for consumption on the premises of an undertaking—as in the case of a large hotel or within an institution—or, if it is supplied for commercial purposes to enter into some form of trade after it leaves the garden or estate. I hope, therefore, that these four Amendments will meet the promise made in Committee to hon. Members opposite.

6.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had spent most of the vacation making speeches at farmers' gatherings, but he must have spent some of the time at Olympia learning to somersault, because his speech is a complete reversal of everything he said on the Committee stage. The matter is left very unclear, because the fourth Amendment

which we are considering, that to leave out from "not," to the end of line 3, on page 7, is the Amendment we had under discussion upstairs. The change here is an alteration in the words:
the production of any consumable produce
instead of:
use of land for any garden.
The part we were discussing, which the right hon. Gentleman has in view to remove from the Bill, is contained in the words:
if the amount so grown is the whole or the greater part of the consumable produce of the garden.
In resisting that Amendment, nothing could have been clearer than the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister. They said that to take out those Words would make the Clause completely impracticable and unworkable. The Under-Secretary of State, who, no doubt, had been instructed by the Minister, made the point that if the words were left out,
so many people would be affected that it would be quite impossible for us to exercise any control over them whatever, and there would be innumerable abuses which could never be checked."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Thursday. 12th December, 1946; c. 140.]
After considerable debate, the Minister himself said:
I still find it impossible to feel that this Amendment would be administratively practicable, or would, in fact, help with the Bill the Clause would then go so wide as to make it utterly inflexible from the administrative point of view."'
He turned it down finally with the elegant words:
We should be absolutely stymied."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Tuesday, 17th December, 1946; c. 146–7.]
I hope that he has got over the difficulty. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) says that it does not matter.

Mr. Alpass: The Minister has done it, that is the point.

Captain Crookshank: But the Minister said that this Amendment would not help the Bill. If he has found a way out of the difficulty, I am very glad. But let us be quite certain what this series of Amendments is going to do. We had some discussion upstairs about the handyman who is a gardener some of the time and a chauffeur for the rest of the time.
We also discussed the case of the odd job gardener. I think what the Minister said about both those cases was clear, that they would not come within the provision in any case. The next question is, How far, if at all, does the ordinary domestic gardener come in, the gardener employed to look after a garden in the ordinary accepted sense of the term? I am not quite clear about that. I understand that the gardener who is dealing with the growing of produce used for an institution such as a hospital, Poor Law infirmary, or an hotel, where the produce goes into the consumption of that institution, is considered to be a competitor with the ordinary market gardener because that institution would have to buy its produce somewhere else if he did not grow it. As I understand the position, that gardener would come under the Bill, because he is producing to all intents and purposes the equivalent of trade.
The difficulty about which I am not quite certain, and which I hope the Minister will make quite clear, is what happens in the case of a gardener who has an ordinary garden in the accepted sense of the term, but where some small amount of the produce is sold. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to bring that person in. I am talking of the person who, perhaps, sells 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the produce. He might have had a surplus of raspberries one year, or strawberries another year, but he would not be in business, or carrying on an undertaking. Am I right in understanding that he would be excluded?

Mr. T. Williams: indicated assent.

Captain Crookshank: I am glad to have the assurance the Minister has given, because that clarifies the position. But, I cannot see where that is made clear in the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. The sole object of those who moved the Amendment upstairs was to equalise the position of the man who acts as a competitor with a market gardener and the market gardener, and that those two workers should be in the same position. What I am not clear about is the gardener in a place where some part of the produce is sold. In that case, I take it that it is rather de minimis. Is that the position? It does not seem a very satisfactory way of leaving it in legislation. I am sorry if I have been too

inquisitive in my questions but my hon. Friends would like to be clear as to the position of the ordinary gardener. I understand that he is out altogether. But, what is the position of a gardener in a garden where, from time to time, there are sales made from the garden, but where it is not a business? Is he brought into the Bill? That is the question on which I would like a clear answer.

Mr. T. Williams: If I can clarify the matter, I shall be pleased, and I am sure hon. Members will be more satisfied. I could not do better than to read into the Subsection the words which will be inserted if the four Amendments are agreed to. The Subsection will then read:
The expression 'agriculture' in the principal Act, and in this Act, shall include the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption, or other use, for the purposes of a trade or business, or any other undertaking, whether carried on for profit or not.
It is clear, there is a question of de minimis here, and we could not avoid that. Indeed, the words we propose to be left out on page 7, would have to be determined by someone. It would not be easier for administration any more than it would be easy of administration for the ordinary gardener. The intention obviously is that the private gardener will normally be left out of this Bill altogether. I did not perform nearly so many acrobatics at a particular period as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to imagine. What I tried to do was to get a definition much nearer the desire of Members in all parts of the Committee. I think we have achieved that, and we exclude the private gardener as such.

Mr. Alpass: As I raised this question in the Committee and put down an Amendment I should like to express my appreciation of the Minister's action in meeting us, perhaps not to the full extent we desire, but to a large extent. The omission of the words which the Amendment will effect will at least clarify the position. I am not myself concerned as to how a Minister manages to arrive at the same conclusion as myself. I suppose that on consideration he thinks, in this case perhaps, that I have got the stronger argument. I am concerned that he has arrived at the result, and that what we have in view will be achieved, and that at least people about whom there was previously


some doubt as to whether they would be included, will be included in the scope of the Bill. I feel that I cannot allow the occasion to pass without thanking the Minister for having done so much to meet us.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 45, leave out "of."

In line 46, after the second "or," insert "of any."

In page 7, line 1, leave out from "not," to the end of line 3.—[[Mr. T Williams.]

6.14 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It was, I think, clear from the Second Reading Debate and from the proceedings in the Committee, that the main provisions in this Bill have the general support of Members on both sides of the House. In the Bill we have tried to ensure that the agricultural worker shall be put in substantially the same position as other workers in industry in so far as statutory wage regulations are concerned, and that the Agricultural Wages Boards are put in much the same position as any other wage fixing authority. The Wages Boards, made up as they are, of representatives of the farmers and the farm workers, and the impartial members, will, we believe, as a result of this Bill, be able to go forward better equipped to make provision for the advancement of the interests of the industry. It is true that a number of matters are left under the Bill to the discretion of the Boards, but in our view it is undesirable to limit their discretion too narrowly. We feel that with their wealth of experience they can be counted upon to exercise their functions in a reasonable way.
A number of questions were raised in the Standing Committee which were fully discussed and mutually resolved, but there were one or two questions which we promised to reconsider in the light of the representations which were argued out in the Committee. Those who were serving on the Standing Committee will recall that when we were discussing Clause 1 (3), Members on both sides of the Committee were anxious to be sure that the Boards would have the power to fix

differential rates of wages, defined according to varying degrees of skill. I remember that in the reply which was given we took the view that the provisions of the Bill as they stood, in conjunction with the First Schedule to this Bill and the main Act, enabled that to be done, but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General undertook to make quite sure that that was the case. I wish to inform the House that he has done so, and we are confirmed in our view that the powers which the Board have under the Bill are sufficient for the purpose. We can, therefore, be assured that if a wage structure is worked out between the various parties in the industry—and the House may be interested to know that the Agricultural Wages Board has set up a committee to go into this matter and see if they can work out some such scheme— there will certainly be no legal handicap in this Bill.
The other point which was largely stressed in Committee upstairs was that dealt with by the Minister a moment ago, namely, the provisions which brought in the gardening side of the Bill. That has been fully explained, and it is clearly unnecessary to pursue it further. One or two doubts were expressed in regard particularly to Clause 1 (3). I would like the House to appreciate that the wording of that Subsection has been widely drawn because we take the view that the Board should have the widest possible discretion in dealing with the different circumstances they will have to consider. * But it is quite clear that one of the important things which the Board will have the power to deal with under that Subsection and the First Schedule is to make provision, if they so think fit, for these questions of sickness and voluntary absence, without any specific reference being made to these matters in the Measure.
Hon. Members will recall that in Standing Committee the case was cited —and those in the industry are familiar with it—where for one reason or another a farmer sometimes feels when a worker is ill that he is under an obligation to give him notice, and so on. That is satisfactory neither to the farmer nor to the farm worker. Therefore, we anticipate, at least so far as this Bill is concerned, that part of it will enable the Wages Boards to consider that matter in its widest sense and to make such provision as they think fit. There was


another point which was stressed in Clause 2 regarding the powers of the county committees. The view was expressed in certain quarters that those committees had not sufficient' power. We have looked through this Measure again very closely and we are satisfied that they have the powers which we desire them to have. If hon Members look at Clause 2 in conjunction with Clause 6, whereby the wages committees in the county have the power of representation, they will understand why we take the view that that adequately meets the position.
In regard to Clause 3, I think that certain hon. Members were rather suspicious about the provisions as to learners. I want to assure the House that, so far as we are concerned, we are satisfied that those provisions are wisely drawn. We feel that in this part of the Bill we are dealing with very young workers and it is necessary that adequate protection should be afforded. We anticipate that eventually both sides of the industry will reach some satisfactory agreement. I would refer hon. Members to Clause 3(5). There was some concern expressed in Standing Committee with regard to this. I think the main concern was expressed during the discussion a while ago on the question of whether or not a person came within the scope of this Bill. The important point which hon. Members must bear in mind is that in this case the Subsection applies only where the person is employed in agriculture under a contract of service or a contract of apprenticeship. That is the test. The Wages Act cannot apply in any other case. It must come either under a contract of apprenticeship or of service for a person to be brought within the meaning of this Subsection.

Mr. Baldwin: I would like to have the question of apprenticeship made clear. To take the case of a pupil who makes a contract with a farmer and pays a premium, does he comes within this provision?

Mr. Collick: The question of whether a man is under the terms of a contract of service or apprenticeship is solely a question of fact to be determined upon the individual case. That is clear. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that one cannot give a general reply on a ques-

tion of that kind. I wish to stress that the real test is whether such men are employed in agriculture under a contract of service or apprenticeship. If they are, then they come within the provisions of this Measure. If they are not, then they are outside the provisions of this Subsection and of the Bill. I think hon. Members may have in mind such instances as a case where a person pays a premium to a farmer for training. In the bulk of those cases he is not under a contract of service or apprenticeship. In that type of case this would not arise.
The only other point I need refer to is the position mentioned earlier regarding consultations between the English and the Scottish Boards. This Bill, of course, applies to England and Scotland in its main provisions. We have taken the view, having regard to all the facts, that the best way to get the necessary liaison between the English and Scottish Boards is not by adding to the machinery of this Bill, not by setting out any detailed machinery, but rather by administrative methods. It is our intention that as there are vacancies for impartial members, one of the impartial members on the Scottish Board will go to the English Board, and similarly an impartial member of the English Board will serve on the Scottish Board. With that we shall arrange for an exchange of documents and in that way we hope to get the necessary close cooperation between the two.
Though this is a tiny Bill of only 12 Clauses, and therefore might by some be regarded as not particularly important, I feel that it is an important landmark in our agricultural wage regulating machinery. I know how keenly this Bill was foreshadowed more than 20 years ago in this House by people who looked forward to the day when the sort of powers which this Bill now embodies would become the law of the land. There is nothing more important than that we should have the best wage-regulating' machinery possible in this very important industry. It is satisfactory to note that in the main the proposals have the support of both sides of the industry, and of the Government. We feel, therefore, that the result will be in the general interests of the industry. I wish to thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for the cooperative way in which we have been able to put this Measure forward. Many hon.


Members have studied it very closely and I think the attendances in the House have been most creditable. Sometimes we have heard criticisms about the absence of Members when agricultural matters have been under discussion, but certainly no one can lay that fault against this House upon consideration of this matter.

6.29 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: Unfortunately I had not the advantage of being a Member of the Standing Committee, or I might not have had to ask this question In the past there has been some doubt as to whether an employer was legally entitled to pay part of his wages to a man who was on sick pay. Either he must pay him the full wage or nothing. Often that was rather hard because the farmer would have liked to pay something. Do I understand that that point is to be considered by the Wages Board so that in future something may be done? With the present rates of sick benefit and wages, to pay both is really unnecessary and almost out of the question. I hope I have made the point clear.

Mr. Collick: I appreciate the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises, and I am very familiar with it. If he will look at Clause 1 (3), he will find that the words there give the Wages Boards the powers to consider this particular matter, and many other matters, with which the Wages Boards, in their wisdom, will deal.

Colonel Clarke: And, presumably, make an announcement of their decision?

Mr. Collick: Yes, all the decisions of the Wages Board are made known in due course.

6.31 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: My hon. Friends on this side of the House do not propose to make any further comments on this Measure, except to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the speech he has just made. I would, however, reinforce the final words which he used that we should consider this Measure an important one. There has been no conflict between the parties upon it, and we have considered this Bill in Committee objectively. Although we would have liked the Government to meet us on even more points than they did, yet we believe

that, by the arguments which we have put forward, we have made a substantial improvement in the Bill during its passage through the House.
As I see it, this Bill, in fact, is a machinery Bill, which supersedes, for the greater part, the Acts of 1924 and 1940, and it puts into permanent form the provisions introduced by the Defence Regulations during the war. Further, it deals with certain other matters which have caused friction within the industry in regard to details so far as the wage structure is concerned. My hon. Friends on this side are most interested in the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary made a few minutes ago to the effect that, under the provisions of Clause 1 (3), the Wages Board is already considering a scheme for grading agricultural wages, because we believe this to be a most important matter for the future wellbeing of the industry. We know the difficulties in connection with this problem, and it is very satisfactory to know that it has already been tackled I have no further comments to make on the Bill itself, except that we, on this side of the House, wish it well in its operation. We shall look forward to the realisation of the hope—and I admit that it was not more than a hope, but a very real one—made by the Minister when we began our proceedings this afternoon that, in a short time, we shall have a consolidated Measure, so that not only we in this House but all the members of the agricultural industry will know exactly where they stand on the wages question.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: As this Bill applies to Scotland, I would wish, on behalf of Scottish Members, to say that we are glad to see it go to the Statute Book. Its main provisions have been agreed upon by the agricultural organisations, and the Committee stage passed off without any great controversy. I have only two regrets about the Bill. My first is in regard to the removal of any limitations in the matters to be taken into account by the Wages Board. In Scotland there are quite a considerable number of farmers who are dissatisfied on that point, and I regret that Parliament has not given some guidance to the Board on what I consider to be a major factor in regard to our agricultural future. I think we shall find, when the big Measure comes before us shortly that if Part I, dealing with prices, is not put right, the


entire Bill will be wrong. Farmers look upon that as very important and they think that the whole Bill will collapse if Part I is not put right.
My second regret is that I did not succeed in persuading the right hon. Gentleman upstairs to appoint the kind of co-ordinating committee I have in mind so that, with the two Wages Boards in England and Scotland, we could avoid the anomalies that have arisen in the past through action not being taken at the same time. My idea was for some synchronisation so that if something was done in England, we should have the same thing done in Scotland. The Minister has gone some way towards that, although it is rather surprising to me that he should suggest that Scotsmen should come down and sit on the English Board. I am not quite sure what the English members will think about that, nor am I certain what Scotsmen will think of Englishmen in Scotland. However, it is a step in the right direction, for what we are after is synchronisation, so that decisions on major questions of policy will be taken at once and so help towards the smooth working of this machine. At the moment, I do not consider that the link between England and Scotland is quite firm enough.
I think we are all agreed on both sides of the House that the labourer is worthy of his hire. "We all want him to be paid in such a way as will reward him for his skill, and we want to improve his conditions of work at the same time. Conditions of work are very important, and so is the question of amenities in the district where he lives. It is up to hon. Members of this House, on both sides, to see that both farmers and workers get a square deal in future. We are all resolved to see that these conditions shall come about, and I hope that this Bill will go on to the Statute Book to help towards that most desirable objective.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Vane: The Parliamentary Secretary at the end of his speech has said that this Bill is an agricultural landmark. I think that is a rather unfortunate illustration because, of all the qualities that landmarks should have, that of being clear is the most important, and that is exactly the quality which this Bill lacks. That criticism, however, does not mean that I do not wish the Bill well. I wish we had spent rather more time in

clearing up some of the many points that were raised upstairs here this afternoon. In particular, there is the question of more specific directions to the Wages Board and also the question of the status of learners. I think we have not yet seen the end of these difficulties. After all, we have found that it was not easy to decide who was or was not a gardener. For instance, are the men looking after the flowers in St. James's Park covered? I do not believe that it has been settled whether such men are covered by the Bill or not. Questions like that will crop up all along the line.
Finally, I do not think the Bill should leave the House without some mention being made of woodmen, who are covered by the Bill. We have heard many pious hopes about the future of agriculture from the Benches opposite, but we have not heard one word about the 25,000 woodmen and their part in the industry, which is a very important one. As they are covered by the Bill, I think it is only right that a word of appreciation should be said of their work before we leave it.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE (Medical tests.)

(1) The Minister may make regulations providing that persons falling within the scope of paragraph (e) of Subsection (1) of Section two of this Act shall be required to pass a medical test of competence to drive, conducted in each case by not less than two qualified medical practitioners.

(2) Regulations may provide for the selection and appointment of persons by whom such tests shall be conducted and to the revocation of appointment, to the evidence of the results thereof and generally with respect thereto.

(3) Subsection (6) of Section six of the "Road Traffic Act, 1934, shall apply in the case of such medical tests.—[Mr. Digby.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Digby: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
First, I should apologise to the House for moving a new Clause the object of which will be to give a new power to make


regulations, but I would point cut, in mitigation, that that power is not a very substantial one. The category of persons affected by this Clause are those who come under the terms of Clause 2 (1. e,) those who hold provisional licences, and are convicted of being in charge of a motorcar when either drunk, or under the influence of drugs. As the Bill now stands, these people are to receive permanent driving licences, subject to an ordinary driving test during the course of which, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, they will be examined on the Highway Code and will have paragraph 3 of that Code, which deals with this subject, impressed upon their minds. We were also assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that he thought this would have a very salutary effect on the consciences of those concerned, although some of us were a little sceptical on that point.
It seems very pointless indeed to test people when they are sober who have been found guilty of being drunk in charge of a car and the effect of the Clause is to add an additional test, if the Minister so desires, namely, a medical test. It seems to me that the best person to tell whether a man is again likely to be drunk in charge of a motor car is not an ordinary driving examiner when the man is sober, but a doctor. The Parliamentary Secretary himself admitted that there was, unfortunately, a group of people who might again be liable to be convicted of the same offence, and it is pretty clear that the ordinary driving test will not disclose this fact. Therefore, it seemed to us that there were good grounds for providing a different kind of test, one which was likely to find them out, and those are the grounds on which I am moving this new Clause for the consideration of the House.
My hon. Friends and I were at great pains in Committee to point out that our object in drawing attention to the present position was to make it less likely that people who were again liable to be drunk in charge of a motor car, should have their licences confirmed. Our intention was not in any way to favour those who had been convicted of this particular offence, as against others convicted of offences such as careless driving. On at least two, if not more, occasions during the Committee stage, as will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT, we advocated this

medical test, and invited the Minister to draft a Clause of this kind. As he has not done so, we thought it best, in order to make our position quite clear, to put down such a Clause. We thought it the more necessary to do so because we had been the subject of an attack in a daily newspaper, which is a great supporter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which gave, a completely distorted picture of our views and led its readers to suppose that the claims of persons convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car, would not go unheeded as far as certain persons on these benches were concerned. That, in my submission, was a complete distortion of the facts, as anyone who had read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in that Committee would know. The newspaper went on to say, in a somewhat more benevolent spirit, that "a man is entitled to drink, whether to enhance his happiness or to drown his sorrows." I have no doubt that, under a Socialist Government, the reason why he would drink would be to drown his sorrows and not to enhance his happiness.
However, hon. Members opposite now have a splendid chance to prove that they are indeed the persons that they are held up to be by this newspaper, the "Daily Herald." They have an excellent opportunity to show how concerned they are that the public should be protected against persons who are again likely to be convicted of driving a motor car whilst under the influence of drink, which can, and undoubtedly often does, cause the most serious accidents, to the detriment of all road users. In the Committee, this medical test was advocated by at least one hon. Member opposite. I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he will accept it or, at least, give us some more convincing argument that he is really considering this particular class of person, and not merely, for the sake of convenience, lumping them with persons guilty of other classes of road offences, such as careless and dangerous driving.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to second the Motion.
We had a considerable discussion on this matter in Committee, and all the relevant points have been made by my hon. Friend in moving this Motion. We have been urged to move this new Clause


in order to make our position quite clear in regard to the Amendment moved in Committee upstairs. I do not think that there was any doubt in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary as to what our intentions were, even if he was unable to accept that Amendment Even if he does not accept this new Clause, I am sure he will realise that it is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill, and is not intended to protect people found guilty of driving a motor car in an intoxicated state. We feel that, if this new Clause were accepted, the Bill would be materially improved.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr, G. R. Strauss): I at once accept the claim of the two hon. Members opposite who moved and seconded this motion, that their intention, and that of their hon. Friends, in moving Amendments on this point during the Committee stage was to strengthen the Bill and to make the roads safer. But I must make the comment that the deduction complained of was a perfectly fair one to draw from the speech of one hon. Member during the Second Reading Debate, as he argued that, while other people who had committed road offences should come up for driving tests, even though they had held a provisional licence for more than a year, those who had been convicted of driving under the influence of drink need not come up for a test. I do not doubt that that hon. Member may have wanted a more severe test for those convicted of that particular offence, but, if so, he did not express himself very well and, therefore, the deduction drawn by the newspaper commentator was not, in the circumstances, wholly unfair.
As regards the merits of this Clause, the hon. Member who moved it said that it was only suggested that the Minister should have power to make regulations providing for a medical test, but I think that the House will agree that, if in a Bill of this sort, a Minister is given certain powers to make regulations for a certain matter, then he is expected to make some such regulations. If, therefore, he does not intend to do so, it would be wrong to accept the permissive powers. A great deal can be said for introducing a medical test into our present driving tests, but it is a highly controver-

sial problem, and we think it is wholly inappropriate to introduce medical tests in this limited Measure, which attempts only to deal with granting provisional licences to about one and a half million people without any test during the war. If we are going to have medical tests for afflictions from which an applicant may be suffering, we should only do so after very careful consideration and after consultations with the various motoring organisations and a large number of other bodies. I am sure that after all that, there would be a large number of Members in all parts of the House who would say our conclusions were wholly wrong, and tell us to think again.
We did not want to introduce any controversial matter into this Bill. We have deliberately and carefully avoided that. I suggest to the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Clause that, while I have no doubt that their motives are to strengthen the provisions of the Bill and to make driving safer in the future than it has been in the past, it would be unwise to introduce a fundamental change in our licensing procedure into this Bill. Therefore, I hope the House will not accept this Clause.

Sir Ronald Ross: I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the number of Ministers who now have power to make regulations in respect of almost everything which affects the lives of everybody in this country is legion, and if they all started making regulations, I shudder to think what horrors the future would hold. We on this side of the House assure the Minister that we do not wish him to make regulations if he can avoid doing so. This is a matter of considerable importance because we feel that the case of the drunken driver, and particularly the habitually drunken driver, is not adequately dealt with by the regulations under the Bill at present. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Press report to which reference has been made was perfectly fair, but when we were endeavouring to point out in Committee that we did not mind what happened to the drunken driver but that we did not think the provisions in the Bill were sufficient to control him properly, or that the tests to which he was subjected were adequate, we were denounced as being "the drunkards' friends,"—which seemed to


be a peculiar result of our desire to cope with the problem of the drunken driver.
Surely, the habitual drunkard is the most easy to detect. He is always a potential danger to navigation on the road. I think I am right in saying that the unfortunate person who is subject to epilepsy is not supposed to have a licence. That is a physical misfortune through no fault of the individual, and a medical test is applied in such a case, but in the case of the habitual drunkard no such test is applied. I appreciate that it is a step forward if we are able, by science, to do something to limit the obviously dangerous drivers on the roads, but surely we should envisage an advance in our methods. It is clear that the Government's intention here is to pass a Bill with as little controversial matter in it as possible, as they urgently desire to get this Bill through. In the event of this New Clause not being accepted, or if we are unable to defeat the Government should we go to a Division, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear these points in mind and will ensure that they are kept under review by the Minister and his medical advisers. If we are able to apply some effective test to the driver who has taken life or who has had bad accidents through drunkenness, it will be of very great benefit to the country as a whole.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment as to destination of fees in respect of driving tests.)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from "made," to the second "and."
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, the fee paid by an applicant for I driving test went to the person conducting the test. We came to the conclusion that it would be more convenient, from an administrative point of view, if that fee were paid instead to a person to be designated by the Minister, who in future would be the clerk to the Traffic Commissioners. The Bill was drafted with that purpose in mind, but subsequently it came to our attention that there are certain organisations who now carry out tests and who should reeive the fees. The organisations are the Metropolitan Police who make tests in respect of public ser-

vice vehicles and taxis, and the Royal Automobile Club, the A.A. and the R.S.A.C. who undertake tests in respect of foreign visitors to this country. That arrangement has long existed. It has been a very satisfactory arrangement which my Ministry has endorsed, and we feel it would be a pity to disturb it. The Amendment means that whereas in the ordinary way a fee paid by an applicant will in future go to the clerk to the Traffic Commissioners, the old arrangement by which certain fees could be paid to the Metropolitan Police or these various automobile clubs will continue. That is the sole purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 2, line 38, after "prescribed," insert:
(other than any as to which the regulations provide that they are to be paid to the person conducting the test and retained by him as remuneration),"—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise further increases under, and otherwise amend, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and to continue that Act in force as amended and to authorise increases in pensions to which that Act does not apply, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session, operating from such date as may be specified therein—

(a)increasing the limits of means specified in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, from one hundred and fifty pounds a year to two hundred pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person (as defined in that Act), and from two hundred pounds a year to two hundred and seventy-five pounds a year in the case of a arried person (as so defined);
(b) providing that where a pension is greater than such as can be increased under the said Act of 1920 but less than the amount to which a smaller pension could


be increased thereunder, it may be increased to that amount."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[-Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

7.2 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think perhaps the Committee is entitled—in fact, I am sure it is—to hear why this Motion is on the Order Paper. Its object is to prepare the way for the introduction of certain Amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Bill with which we shall be dealing in Committee tomorrow. Those Amendments deal with the income limits laid down in the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1920 and 1924. Those two Acts are similar to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and the amending Bill which is now before the House. The Acts of 1920 and 1924 sought to assist pensioners who had suffered under the rise in the cost of living during the 1914–18 war; the 1944 Act and the present amending Bill seek to do the same thing for pensioners who have suffered in a similar way from the rise in the cost of living, as a result of the war recently concluded.
In both sets of Measures the method employed has been to give a percentage increase to those in the lower ranges of pensions in order to assist them to meet hardship due to the rise in the cost of living. In both cases upper income limits were set. Unfortunately, in the Acts of 1920 and 1924 the income limits were extremely low, as we should judge them now. The limits were £200 for a married pensioner, and £150 for a single pensioner without dependants. This Motion, as the Committee will see, seeks to raise those limits from £150 to £200 for a single, and from £200 to £275 for a married pensioner. The reason for this change is that, unless we do this, pensioners who qualify under those two Acts for a pension, and also qualify for an old age pension, may not be able to get the full benefit of the recent increase in the old age pension which Parliament gave. We think it would be unfair to give with one hand and take away with the other.
As the Committee will know, the old age pension rate is going up for single pensioners from 10s. to 26s. a week, and for married pensioners from 20s. to 42s. a week. The gross yearly amount is £41 12s. in one case and £57 4s. in the other. What we have done in this Motion, to which we hope the Committee will agree, is to increase the income limits

under the Acts of 1920 and 1924, by £50 in the case of a single pensioner and by £75 in the case of a married pensioner. The Committee will thus see that these increases namely, in the case of the single man, £41 12s., and in the case of a married man, £57 4s., are covered by the proposed higher income limits. We do not contemplate that these changes will cost any very great sum. The number of pensioners who come under these two Acts must now be extremely small, and be limited almost entirely to police pensioners who, as the Committee knows, would have retired early at, I think, the age of 55. Although there cannot be very many of them still alive, we do feel that they should be covered. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will agree to the Motion without further debate.

Sir Ronald Ross: I think the general opinion of the Committee is that this increase of the upper limit is a very good thing. It does not give pensioners a very luxurious standard of living, but at the same time it does, as I understand it, prevent these old men, who were servants of the State, being deprived of the benefits which other pensioners would get from the increase of the old age pension which the House has decided. A body with which I am always most concerned in these matters is the Royal Irish Constabulary, whose members were very loyal servants of the State, who very often had a bad time in carrying out their duties. It is so easy to forget the past services of a force which no longer exists. I would like to ask one question on the position of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Eire. Of course, they will not get the advantages of an increased old age pension, and presumably they get no compensating advantage, except in the case of those who happen to have some private means. Those who have private means will be able to benefit by the upper limit, which would otherwise have deprived them of part of the pensions increase. The main benefit, of course, will be for those who are citizens of the United Kingdom who qualify for the old age pension. Certainly, on their behalf I welcome this Motion.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ROAD HAULAGE CHARGES

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move
That the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O.,1946, No. 1890), dated nth November, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 13th November be annulled.
I do not know whether the Order at present before the House is, in intention and object, a good Order or a bad Order. The language in which it is couched, having exceeded even the usual departmental standard of obscurity, is such that it is not clear, in my submission to the House, as to what the Order means; and, therefore, my hon. Friends and myself have put down this Motion with, in the first place, the intention of obtaining, as I am sure we shall, some elucidation from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Order before the House, Statutory Rule and Order 1890, is an Order which, perhaps, in these days inevitably, takes effect merely by amending a previous Order. The previous Order to which it refers is Statutory Rule and Order No. 251 of 1942. the Order of 1942 provided that charges to be made by road hauliers could be raised, in the absence of special circumstances, by 7½ per cent. above the level running in October, 1940. The present Order, No. 1890 of 1946, removes that provision and inserts in its place a provision that these charges may be raised 55 per cent. above the level running in July, 1939. As the House will speedily appreciate, the question of whether October, 1940, prices plus 7½ per cent. are greater or less than July, 1939, prices plus 55 per cent. depends entirely upon the relative levels running on those two dates; and there is neither in the Order nor in the explanatory memorandum which accompanies it any indication whatsoever as to what the effect of the Order is, in the only respect in which it matters to the ordinary man, that is to say, whether it raises prices or whether it lowers prices.
After all, this Statutory Rule and Order is legislation in the form of delegated legislation subject to the scrutiny of this House, and I do say it does make nonsense of the responsibility of thi9 House to supervise legislation, if legislation is produced in such a form that no hon. Member can, by reading the Order,

even discover whether the effect of the Order is to raise or lower prices. I hope that in the course of the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what, in effect, is the effect of it. I am sure he will. But I also hope he will be prepared to give some indication that he and his Department admit that this is an unsatisfactory method of legislating, and that this method will not be used in the future; because legislation which neither hon. Members nor other subjects can understand by reading it is a very grave interference with the responsibility of this House, and with the liberty and independence of the subject.
I am fortified in the view that the language of this Order is extremely obscure by the report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders. As the House knows, that Committee acts as watch dog of this House in matters appertaining to delegated legislation, and in this case the watch dog has barked. In the Second Report of this Session, which was submitted to this House on 18th November, the Select Committee reported as follows:
They have also considered the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1890), a copy of which was presented on 13th November, and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it, on the ground that its form or purport calls for elucidation.
It is proper, I think, in fairness to the Department, that I should also invite the attention of the House to the Memorandum which was submitted by the Department to the Select Committee. It is printed as Appendix I to the Select Committee's Report. This is the explanation submitted by the Department to the Select Committee:
I It is understood that the Committee consider that the Explanatory Note appended to the above Order is not sufficiently informative in that it does not indicate whether the extent of the permissible charges has been increased or decreased by the new Order.
2. The Department would desire to explain that the cost to Road Haulage operators of operating their services had greatly increased between July, 1939, and October, 1940, and had increased still further by February, 1942, when the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Order, 1942, was made. The purpose of that Order …was to reflect in the permitted charges the increase from October, 1940. The percentage of 7½ established as the standard in the absence of proof to the contrary was fixed by reference to the latter date rather than by fixing a greater percentage by refer-


ence to July, 1939. Since February, 1942, costs have still further increased and accordingly it became necessary to reflect this increase by permitting a further increase in charges. It was, however, considered that it would now be preferable to do so by reference to a prewar date and consequently this was done by fixing the percentage of 55 referable to July, 1939, again in the absence of proof to the contrary, rather than by fixing a smaller percentage by reference to October, 1940. What the last mentioned figure would have been cannot be exactly stated as no calculation has been made on that basis but broadly speaking it would probably have been approximately 25 per cent.
With due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department, that explanation, which apparently failed to satisfy the Select Committee, can hardly be described as an example of extreme lucidity, but, even accepting it at its face value, the House will appreciate that within even this explanation no attempt is made to give the precise effect of the Order. There are the words "broadly speaking," "approximately," "no calculation has been made. "I do submit to the House that that is not a proper way in which to carry on public business, and that where changes of great importance to one particular industry and, through it, to the community are made, by virtue of the very wide powers, in the Defence Regulations and the Supplies and Services Act, which the Department has, it is incumbent upon the Department not only to legislate clearly, but, also, to know exactly what it is it is trying to do It is, surely, essential that these changes in prices should be effected as the result of some precise calculation and some accurate degree of planning. When the Department itself comes along and says" Broadly the effect is this, but no calculation has been made, "it does appeal a very slipshod method of conducting public business. This Motion has been put down, as I venture to suggest to the House, as a direct consequence of the reporting to the House of this Order by the Select Committee, and I am perfectly certain that, in the circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary will welcome the opportunity which has been given him of supplying that elucidation of the Order which, so far, has not been provided
My hon. Friends and I do not approach this Order with a feeling that it necessarily raises any great question of principle,

though it is a little difficult to say because it is not very clear what it does raise. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy us, and obviate the necessity of taking the matter to a Division, but in view of the perfectly clear Report of the Select Committee it would seem necessary, if we are to be able to avoid taking that course, for the Parliamentary Secretary to do two things, first of all to succeed—where his own staff have so significantly failed—in providing a lucid exposition of the Order, which I am sure is well within his compass, and secondly, to give some reassurance to the House as to the future conduct of his Department in these matters. I do not believe, from what I know of the Parliamentary Secretary, that he is prepared to come to that Box and say that this is a satisfactory method of legislation which he desires to continue, and I hope he will be able to agree that this Order, which has attracted first the attention of the Select Committee and now of this House, is unsatisfactory in form by reason of its lack of clarity and that his Department, pressed though they may be by other responsibilities, will in future legislate more lucidly if not perhaps more wisely.

7.22 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
First, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I myself only wish to raise one point. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why this Order has been made in the form of an amending Order —why the Department did not take the course of making a fresh Order, which would have appeared to be quite as convenient and infinitely more clear to those who have the misfortune to have to try to understand these things. The amending Order, it is true, only makes two or three quite brief amendments in the original Order, but in the ordinary way there would be no apparent reason why a fresh Order was not made. The only case I can think of where, as a rule, an amending Order should be preferred to a fresh Order is where consolidation would involve a great deal of reprinting; where perhaps the original Order was of considerable length and the amendments quite short.-In that case it might be considered un-


reasonable to expect the whole thing to be printed over again for the sake of making some quite brief amendments.
That consideration, however, would not apply in this case at all, because the amending Order is only about six lines shorter than the original Order which it amends and, moreover, it is interesting to note that the original Order was reprinted after the date on which the amending Order was made. The amending Order was made on nth November, 1946, and if one looks at the end of the copies of the original Order now available in the Vote Office, one sees that it has got at the bottom"1947 reprint." On the ground of reprinting, therefore, there could have been no justification whatsoever for issuing an amending Order rather than a fresh and consolidated Order. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why that course was taken. Now, quite unnecessarily, we have to look at two separate pieces of paper and piece them together, inscribing details from the one on to the other and so on, in order to understand, or try to understand, what is intended. I think that this is one of those cases where, through the indifference of a Department to the convenience of the general public, we have been put to quite unnecessary trouble, and I do hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to deal with this with some thoroughness, because it is just the kind of thing that is causing us and all people throughout the country a great deal of unnecessary annoyance. A little thought, I am sure, would have led to the production not of an amending Order but of a fresh Order, consolidating, and there would certainly have been no increase in the amount of printing and paper involved.

7.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter, particularly in view of the comments of the Select Committee, which make it desirable that some explanation should be given by a representative of my Department so that their criticisms may be answered. The complaint which was made by the Select Committee, and at much greater length this evening by the hon. Member, is that the amending Order is not precise enough; that it is difficult for any member of the

public who reads it to understand exactly what its effect will 'be and the extent of any changes which may result, and that we should have been more definite in stating, either in the Order or the explanation, the exact consequences of the amendments.
The difficulty arises because the charges made by road hauliers vary enormously. It is quite impossible to say as one can in respect of railway charges, what they are. Road haulage rates vary from day to day; the rates which a road haulier will charge for carrying goods from One point to another will depend, it may be, on whether he can get a return load. They will depend on the amount of competition which he has to face during a particular week or month. They depend on a variety of circumstances, and the rates charged by one haulier may be entirely different from those charged by another over a long period. Therefore, it is impossible to say with any precision what, at any date, the general level of rates is in the road haulage industry, or what the rates are for a haul between any two points. We have a certain amount of information on the subject to give us some guidance, but we can do no more than make a very rough estimate ourselves of the result of the Amending Order. We cannot say with any precision whether road haulage rates will be permitted to go up by this or that amount.
Perhaps it would be as well if I gave very briefly the history which led up to this Amendment. The Minister of War Transport at the time made a public announcement, in October, 1940, making clear to the industry that he had certain powers of control over road haulage rates under the Defence Regulations. In 1942 an Order was made in an attempt to establish the level of charges to be made by the road haulage industry based on what would have been considered fair and reasonable in 1940—not on what the 1940 rates were. It would have been impossible to ascertain what they were precisely as they vary in the way I have indicated. If any haulier charged a high rate, he might have to argue before a Traffic Commissioner that the rate he proposed was reasonable, in relation to the general level of charges in 1940, plus 7½ per cent. increase.
There was a good deal of argument as to what was considered fair and reasonable in 1940. When the road haulage organisation came to an end, and the Minister set up an emergency scheme, the industry asked for a revision of the provisions of the 1942 Order. They argued, however, that it would be far better to base calculations, not on the 1940 level which was a war-time level, but on the 1939 level, and that there should be permitted an increase of 70 per cent. over what might have been considered fair and reasonable in 1939. My Department considered that there was merit in their first contention, as there was rather more information available about 1939 rates than about 1940 rates. We therefore accepted that contention, and then we examined carefully their argument in favour of a 70 per cent. increase over the 1939 level. We came to the conclusion that that request was unreasonable, and we suggested, what seemed to us to be reasonable under the circumstances, an increase of 55 per cent. That increase was accepted, as the industry said, reluctantly. We have incorporated these changes in the Amending Order we are discussing.
If I am asked, as I have been asked by the Select Committee, and as I have been asked today, what precisely is the effect of that amendment, I shall have to reply that in view of the set-up of the industry, the large number of units and lack of uniformity in charges, I cannot say precisely. But if I am forced to guess what the result will be, I would guess that it might mean a permitted in-, crease of something in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. over the 1940 level. I am afraid that it is impossible to give any more precise information than that. It was because of our difficulty in providing any more exact calculation when we amended the Order, that the charge has been made against us that it is vague and not sufficiently precise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the point concerning the failure of the Order to state the precise amount of increase permitted, but does he appreciate that on the face of the Order itself, or in the Memorandum, there is no statement of any increase, as opposed to a decrease, being authorised?

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that, and I think there is merit in the argument of the hon. Member that the explanatory note might have been fuller in that respect, and stated that it represented an increase, even if it was impossible to state precisely what it would be. The House will bear in mind, however, that everyone in industry who uses road haulage and of course road hauliers themselves will appreciate immediately on glancing at this amendment what the change means.
Then the point has been made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) that it would have been more satisfactory to have produced a new Order rather than an amending Order. I do not agree with that suggestion. The Order sets out at some length the procedure to be adopted in trying to establish these charges, and it occupies a page and a quarter. What the amendment does is to alter one date and one figure, and I should have thought it would have been much better to make an amending Order for one date and one figure, rather than to reprint the whole of the provisions of the original Order, as suggested by the hon. Member.

Sir J. Mellor: I pointed out that the Department have reprinted, in 1947, the original Order. After the amending Order was made on nth November, 1946, they proceeded this year to reprint the original Order, and there are thus two printed pieces of paper to be used. If there had been a consolidating Order printed, only one piece of paper would have to be used.

Mr. Strauss: I suppose that the number of copies of the original Order ran out. I am not perhaps as familiar with the Statutory Orders as the hon. Member, but I should have thought it was a reasonable thing to amend the two figures rather than isssue another Order.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not easier to understand one piece of paper than two? If a man has to consider an original Order, as amended by a new Order, he inscribes on the original Order details in respect of which it has been amended. Surely it is convenient to save that trouble by having a consolidated Order?

Mr. Strauss: I understand the argument of the hon. Member, and we might discuss


this for a long time. I appreciate his point of view, but I still think that mine is the right one. If I had an Order by me on my desk and there were two alterations, I would find it more convenient to have a slip showing the alterations in figures, than to have a new Order and have to read it all through.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, to avoid the industrialist having to read through the whole Order, it could be dealt with in the explanatory note, which is one of the purposes of an explanatory note? The amending element could be put in italics.

Mr. Strauss: I still maintain that it was more simple and more direct for a man who has to operate this Order to have the amendments rather than the whole of the Order reprinted. But I will undertake this: I have attempted to give the reasons which led to the amendment being worded in a way which the Select Committee found unsatisfactory. I have pointed out that it was not wholly our fault; that it was because the industry itself has a charges system which is so unprecise, that we could not be more precise when we came to the House and wanted the Order amended. I will, however, bear in mind the arguments which have been put forward about trying to make amendments to Orders more clear in future. I will also undertake to bear in mind whether, when we have to amend an Order, it would not be better for all concerned to issue a new Order instead.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I hope the House will deal tenderly with this Order because, whatever its merits or demerits, it has undoubtedly discovered an imaginative writer of the first importance. I cannot disclose his name, but he happens to be an assistant secretary in the Ministry of Transport, and he has certainly been responsible for what I regard as an absolutely classical example of the literary art. He has given us one of the most picturesque and dithyrambic sentences which it has ever been my lot to encounter. It reminds me of a lovely, cloudy landscape by Constable. In that sentence the writer says:
What the last mentioned figure would have been cannot be exactly stated as no calculation has been made on that basis, but,

broadly speaking, it would probably have been approximately ‖
I hope that this may find its way into one of the prose anthologies of our country.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I am far from satisfied with the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has received my hon. Friend's objections in this matter. It is quite unsatisfactory to us, for him to say simply that he will bear in mind the possibility of my hon. Friend's being right that it would be more convenient to have the Order reprinted. It is a nuisance, not only for lawyers, but for people in industry to have to keep on noting up Orders instead of taking one sheet out of a book, discarding it, and inserting in its place a new Order. Here the Ministry have had to produce two sheets of paper. It would have been as simple as pie, to do the job at one bite. The explanatory note, which is a boiling down of part of paragraph 2 of the Order of 1942, and then a boiling down of part of paragraph 4, took, I should assume, about 20 minutes writing and thinking, but nothing has been done to explain to the ordinary Member of Parliament why somebody is to get a 55 per cent. increase when, in the old days, he was' allowed only 7½ per cent.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to see that instructions are given about this matter in the right quarter. I ask him to say, "Please explain this so that Members of Parliament can really understand what it is all about." When the figure goes up to 55 per cent. it really does call for some explanation. No doubt within the secrecy of the walls of the Ministry it might be said, "They are all very stupid; they will not understand this unless you explain it. Of course, the industry knows all about it." But it will be awkward for Members of the House to have to ask what it means when the explanatory note has been drawn in such a way that only industry understands it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "We really ought to have given more particulars," instead of simply saying, "I will remember it." There is nothing more painful to the lawyer than legislation by reference, than having to keep on looking up these wretched amendments. We felt strongly that we ought to come here and make


a fuss about this. This sort of thing may happen again. I am not satisfied that the Minister should go away possibly bearing in mind that there had been a fuss, but without putting it on record that this was a slovenly bit of draftsmanship and very unsatisfactory indeed.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I want to say a word or two about some of the remarks which have been made by Members opposite. I think they have overlooked the fact that this is not the first occasion on which this type of amended Order has been made. It is no aspersion, either on the Minister who has presented this Order, or on any particular party, that Orders are made in this way. Hon. Members opposite will recall that in the course of their old misdeeds similar troubles occurred.

Sir J. Mellon: Would the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that this is not the first time that we have complained?

Mr. Janner: I recognise that. That is merely the preamble to what I have to say. I quite agree that this occasion should be taken by the Minister to try to influence, not only his own Department, but every Department, so that this kind of complaint may not be experienced in future. Undoubtedly, it is extremely difficult to deal with these Orders in any circumstances, and it becomes much more difficult when one has to refer to one Order while reading another. My hon. Friend has said that he will consider this matter, and I think that that is a concession on his part which we ought to accept. But we should urge him to try to carry it further to other Ministries. When new Orders are made I think it would be an advantage to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), about putting new words in italics, or printing the old words in such a way that one can see what change has been made in the document. That would be useful, not only to the trade or individual concerned, but to those who have to interpret the Order.
On the other hand, I do not agree at all with the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) that the explanation

given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. After all, these Orders are made for the particular trade concerned, and while lawyers and others have to look into them, the fact remains that the trade will readily understand the explanatory note. I think the comments which have been made by the Minister are quite satisfactory in that respect, and, in those circumstances, I think there is little cause for complaint. Most of us, no doubt, imagine that we could do very much better, but that is rather beside the point. I think the explanatory note is sufficient in itself, and conveys what the trade requires to be conveyed.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, went to considerable length in explaining why it was impossible to be precise and accurate, either in the Order or the explanatory note. One of the reasons which he gave for not being precise was that there were so many rates in the road haulage industry. Those arguments show that the road haulage industry is no closed ring. I do not want to widen the Debate any further, but I suggest that if there are so many varying rates in the industry, that shows that there is good competition among road hauliers. It also means that many hauliers are not charging the maximum rates permitted. Why do we continue this control of haulage? Surely, there is a time when war-time controls will be relaxed one by one; and why cannot this control be relaxed when, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, many road hauliers are not charging the maximum permitted rates? They are charging rates which vary from one road haulier to another, and if a man, who wishes to have his goods carried from X to Y, does not like the rates of one road haulier, he can go to another, and get competitive rates. I hope that when controls appear to be as unnecessary as this control, that even this Government will relax them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given as to the future conduct of these affairs by his Department, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

Orders of the Day — L.N.E.R. PASSENGER SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Coldrick.]

7.54 P.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a subject which, while I do not claim it is of national importance, is of very great and deep importance to the people living in a considerable area. It is a question which touches very nearly the daily lives of a large number of people living in Hertfordshire and East Anglia. I am referring to the running of the railway trains to those parts.
I first raised this question with the Minister, not by way of Debate on the Adjournment, but by way of Question in this House on 4th November, which was some weeks after the start of what I believe was known as the "Improved services." Already, at that early time in the autumn, the running of these trains was showing signs of unpunctuality, and I put the point to the Minister as to whether this unpunctuality would be remedied, and when any improvement could be expected in the rolling stock and amenities of these lines. The reply given by the Minister was not wholly satisfactory, and I have had a large volume of correspondence in regard to this matter since I raised it then in the House.
Although my Question on that occasion referred both, to travelling times and to amenities, I shall not refer much this evening to the question of amenities or travelling conditions. That does not mean to say that I consider that the conditions are good enough for the people of Hertfordshire. Far from it. Indeed, it would take the pen of a Dickens or a Zola to describe properly some of the journeys which my constituents and I have, from time to time, made on trains travelling between London and Hertfordshire. The actual conditions of travelling, apart from unpunctuality, are far from satisfactory. The carriages provided remind one all too often of the 1914 war legend of 8 chevaux,40 hommes." I have not observed any horses in these carriages, so I can only assume that the conditions are such that they proclaim the doctrine of the closed stable in regard to them. I do not propose to enter on to the broad question of amenities and travelling conditions.
I will confine myself to the question of timings and mis-timings. The Minister, in answer to the Question to which I have referred, relating to the unpunctuality of trains serving a variety of towns in Hertfordshire, said that, up to that time, there had been an average of 11 to 12 minutes unpunctuality in regard to the evening trains. I did not altogether understand that answer, because obviously delays are liable to be cumulative, and 11 to 12 minutes' delay at Broxbourne may well become something more substantial at Bishop's Stortford. The figures given to me show that that was an unoerestimate. At the beginning of November, the average unpunctuality of the evening trains to Bishop's Stortford was from 15 to 16 minutes. I do not think one can assess the inconvenience and dislocation simply by a statement of average unpunctuality, because where there is a variable, but always substantial, daily unpunctuality, one is bound as a good planner—and I know that the hon. Gentleman takes great credit for being a good planner—to plan on the worst case and, therefore, the actual amount of time lost in dislocation is considerably greater than any overall, average statement on unpunctuality would show.
I would like to make a brief comparison with prewar timings, because I found that before the war the time taken on that 30 miles journey to Bishop's Stortford varied from 41 to 47 minutes. I have noted down the actual schedule of some of the prewar timings. The 5.19 took 46 minutes, the 6.30 took 47 minutes, and the 7.10 took 41 minutes. The trains to Bishop's Stortford at present take longer than that on their schedule. The 5.12 takes 56 minutes, the 5.49 also 56 minutes, and the 6.30 takes 55 minutes, so even taking the Minister's average figures of 11 to 12 minutes delay in November—and in practice, as I have tried to show, it was a good deal more—the journey to Bishop's Stortford at present is taking at least 20 minutes longer for a 30 miles journey than before the war. If the Minister feels tempted as I am afraid he may, to say that all this strengthens the case for nationalisation — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I thought we should have that—I would like to point out 'that the better timings to which I am referring were of course achieved under conditions of absolute private enterprise before the


Minister's Department had any jurisdiction.

Mr. Walkden: Is it not also trueg and I was a regular traveller on that line before the war—that the average loss of time was 15 to 20 minutes on these trains which the hon. Gentleman has now quoted in the prewar years when the railways had the utmost freedom?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is not my information, nor was it my experience. My own experience is limited to the years 1937 and 1938, before the war, but that was not my experience or the experience of a considerable number of correspondents who have written to me on the matter. In regard to the evidence of unpunctuality, I am furnished with such a volume of evidence that it is almost an embarras de richesse. All I can do is to select certain trains which seem to me to illustrate the points that I wish to make. Let me take the 6 o'clock and 6.30 evening trains, because these are peak-hour evening trains carrying a very large number of passengers to Hertfordshire and East Anglia. The theory, as the Minister knows, is that the 6.30 train takes passengers to Broxbourne and Bishop's Stort-ford, and beyond, and that the 6 o'clock train takes passengers to Waltham Cross non-stop and thence to Cheshunt, Brox-bourne, Rye House, St. Margaret's Ware, and Hertford I may mention that by getting off the 6 o'clock train at St. Margaret's, one should be able to go on at 6.46 on the branch Buntingford line to the villages of Mardock, Widford, Hadham, Standon, Braughing, West Mill, and Buntingford. That is the theory with regard to those two trains.
I would mention that, as the Minister knows, there is another service to Hertford from King's Cross. This line is also in considerable need of improvement in regard to its train timings, particularly in the provision of some fast trains; but that is all I intend to say on that subject this evening, because although the schedule of timings on the King's Cross-Hertford North Line is unsatisfactory, they have adhered with reasonable consistency to the timings of the schedule. Therefore, I leave that line for this evening and return to the peak hour evening trains which I mentioned.
On them, I must say that throughout this autumn and winter the 6.30 train to

Broxbourne and Bishop's Stortford, and the 6 o'clock train to Hertford and the intervening stations, have been consistently and grossly irregular and un-punctual. There was, as a matter of fact, an improvement for a few days after I put my Question to the Minister in November, which no doubt was purely coincidental, but I regret to say it has not been sustained. I have many time schedules of the actual running to show the unpunctuality of these trains, but clearly I can select only a few specimen timings. Taking the 6.30 train to Bishop's Stortford, I will quote the following few instances. On 14th November, 10 days after my original Question, that train was 61 minutes late in arriving at Bishop's Storfford; on 25th November, it was 55 minutes late; on 26th November, 66 minutes late; on 9th November, 45 minutes late; on 17th December, it was cancelled altogether, and not only was it cancelled, but the 5.42, which is the train before it, was also cancelled; on 8th January, the 6.30 was cancelled again, and owing to the following train, the 7.15, being no less than 36 minutes late, this meant that people who left their offices in the City, which is near to Liverpool Street, in the region of 6 o'clock, took three hours to get to their homes in Bishop's Stortford, 30 miles away.

Mr. Sparks: What was the state of the weather on those occasions, because it would make a great deal of difference if there was fog at those times?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for his intervention. I would not like to say definitely that on no occasion there was any fog, but I will tell the hon. Member that this autumn and winter have been the least foggy autumn and winter in the Lea Valley within the recollection of most people. The number of foggy evenings has been remarkably small. Therefore, the cases I have taken cannot be explained —nor do I think the Minister will seek to explain them—by climatic conditions.
I would like now to quote some figures with regard to the 6 o'clock train. These are all more recent figures. On 6th January, the 6 o'clock train was 85 minutes late at Broxbourne, which is a distance of under 20 miles. On 7th January, it was cancelled altogether, which may perhaps


have been a good tiling if 85 minutes late was the best it could achieve. On 8th January, it was 30 minutes late; on 9th January, 15 minutes; on 10th January, 25 minutes; on 13th January, 25 minutes; on 14th January, 10 minutes; on 15th January, 5 minutes, and on the 16th January—I think the Minister must have sent for his brief for this Debate by then —it was only one minute late. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Acton to the fact that on all those dates visibility and weather conditions are stated to have been good.
I could quote instances with regard to other trains in some detail, but I will not do so. For instance, the 5.42 train from Liverpool Street to Bishop's Stortford on 6th January was 116 minutes late at Bishop's Stortford, although I believe there was some technical reason on that evening. The 10 p.m. train 'on 12th January, on which night I believe' there was a certain amount of fog, got into Bishop's Stortford, 30 miles away, at 6 o'clock on the following morning, by which time the travellers were very tired and harassed.
I think I have said enough to show the inconveniences that are being suffered by the users of these trains. I would like to remind the House, and particularly the Minister, that the 6.30 train affects Broxbourne as well as Bishop's Stortford; and that the 6 o'clock train serving all the stations I previously mentioned, frequently adds to its lateness at Broxbourne, by further delays at St. Margaret's, which are due to certain manoeuvrings that are alleged to be executed in the interests of people living on the Buntingford line; in fact, as the train is so late at St. Margaret's, the Bunting-ford connection is by no means always available to the passengers when they get there, so that a good deal of the manoeuvring is in vain, and simply means further delay for the passengers travelling on to Ware and Hertford.
With regard to the trains to Waltham Cross, which, as the Minister will appreciate, is this side of London from Broxbourne, a letter which I received as earlv as 30th November, before any fog had set in this year, stated that the average for the past week had been 30 minutes lateness for a 12¾ miles journey, and that the worst case had been 75 minutes un-punctuality. I travelled down by train

to Waltham Cross a few days later, and I struck slightly worse than average in that my train was some 40-odd minutes late.
The same applies to the up trains in the morning as applies to the down trains in the peak hours of evening travel. I do not want to weary the House by too many statistics, but it is, of course, necessary to produce evidence of the allegations I am making, and so I quote these few figures in respect of the up trains in the morning. The 8.16 from Broxbourne to Liverpool Street was 13 minutes late on 2nd January; the 9.8 on 6th January was 21 minutes late; the 8.16 on 8th January was 16 minutes late; on 14th January the 8.16 was no less than 40 minutes late; the following day the 9.8 was 29 minutes late; and the day after that this particular correspondent adds, I imagine with a sigh of relief, "by car."
These are some of the timings in the mornings of the up trains to London, and I might also quote an instance from the other line, the Bishop Stortford line, to which my attention has been drawn by a constituent. The train due to leave Bishop Stortford at 7.23 was late because, although it had only come 25 miles from Cambridge, the driver decided that he must take in water and that process apparently took 42 minutes. So there was a 42 minute delay for some 600 passengers because—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Minister shakes his head, but this is evidence given to me by my constituents and they were there while neither the Minister nor I were; so I am inclined to accept the facts brought before me by perfectly reputable citizens. I think that the Minister, instead of shaking his head, should make an inquiry before he puts forth so strong a negative. The instances can be multiplied—and probably will be by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones)—from the Buntingford line, because I think it is on that line that the case occurred of a soldier who travelled up to Liverpool Street from Buntingford. Having come to the barrier and given up his ticket he expressed thanks that he had finished half of his journey. On being asked where he was going he replied, "South Africa." That is the fame which the Bungtingford line


has achieved, and I am glad to think that there will be time for the hon. Member to add something to this Debate.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will make reference to the go-slow movement at Stratford as being partly the cause of these difficulties. I am sure they have aggravated the difficulties of this line; and, though I do not myself wish to go into the merits of that dispute, from the point of view of people living in Hertfordshire it does seem a sad thing that this dispute could not have been settled more rapidly so that the grievances of 290 fitters and mechanics would not impose so much hardship on the travelling public of Hertfordshire. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to the question as to whether the Government have done all in their power to secure a speedy settlement of this dispute. Conditions lately have, of course, been considerably aggravated by the cancellation of trains without notice. I myself had an experience of this the other day when telephoning to ask whether the train by which I proposed to travel was or was not cancelled. I was informed that no notice to that effect had been received. To that I replied, "Then I assume it will run." But I am bound to say that the person answering the telephone did not seem to think that that followed at all; and she was quite right because it did not run.
I want to make one last statistical reference and that is to the loss of man hours. It has been computed that the 8.30 up train from Bishop's Stortford to Liverpool Street has lost a total of 308 man hours in the first 16 days of the month while the 5.24 train from Liverpool Street has lost a total of 586 man hours. That is an aggregate loss of 14 hours 48 minutes per day. Assuming some 650 people travel on these trains, this means approximately a total loss of man hours of something from 20,000 to 30,000 a week. When I said that this was not a matter of national importance I am not sure that I did not understate my case. This is a great loss of working hours to the nation, and no less important, or in my view almost as important, is the great deprivation to the citizens of Hertfordshire of their leisure hours in the evening. This is adding a considerable burden to both ends of the day, which is not making the present none too easy conditions of life any lighter for these people.
I do protest most vigorously against the continuance of such conditions or any MinisteriaLcomplacency in regard to that. Indeed, it has been suggested by some that the Minister of Transport has entered into some form of an unholy pact with his colleague, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, to see that the new towns in Hertfordshire do not become dormitory towns. It is suggested that this is a deep laid scheme to stop any sensible person travelling up and down to London from the new towns on account of the difficulties of transport.
I am, of course, aware that there are difficulties in regard to this, and I know that the burden of traffic carried from Liverpool Street is extremely heavy indeed. I do not want to cast stones at the company, because theirs is a difficult position. I know, for example, that there was a plan to electrify this line before the war, and as far as I know that plan is ready to be put into operation if and when circumstances permit. That would no doubt improve the situation a great deal. I believe it to be a fact that the particular quality of coal which is being serviced to these trains is extremely poor, and that some of these failures are due to the simple fact of being unable to get sufficient steam up owing to the quality of the coal. Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, I am aware that there is a great shortage of locomotives on this line, and perhaps on others, but I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is false economy to starve our home transport of locomotives at the same time as we are exporting locomotives on the scale that we are doing, because if he considers the effect on industry of this loss of man hours to which I have referred he will realise that the provision of only a tew up-to-date, good locomotives would save on this line a considerable amount of man hours for the nation.
I do hope that the Minister will realise the gravity of this situation in the daily lives of a large number of people in Hertfordshire and in East Anglia, and that he will give a helpful and constructive reply. Many of my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in that county are gravely concerned at the travelling conditions to which they are exposed, and my constituents have enlisted my help, and I hope not in vain, because I am not prepared to see them


go on day by day in conditions of such discomfort without using such Parliamentary opportunities as I am able to achieve to bring some small measure of discomfort to the Minister and his Department. If these conditions do not improve, and if the Minister is unable to address himself in a constructive way to this problem, then I hope he will not under estimate the fertility of my resource or the pertinacity of my purpose in coming back to the question again and again.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Gunter: I think the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) concluded his speech with a very fair assessment of the problems that have had to be faced by the London and North Eastern Railway Company during the past few months, but I am not as happy as he is that the emergency that has rapidly worsened during the past three months has been adequately dealt with, or that all that might have been done has been done by the London and North Eastern Railway Company. The hon. Gentleman said that he would refrain from dealing at too great a length with the conditions in which passengers were travelling in the Eastern area on the lines he mentioned, but I think it is fair comment to say that while the railway companies have, happily, regulations for safeguarding the humane loading of cattle, the passengers who are compelled to travel from Liverpool Street have certainly not been safeguarded by any such conditions. We have the daily spectacle, in the peak hours, of compartments scheduled to hold 12 persons carrying 25 and 26 passengers for distances of 20, 25 and 30 miles. We fully appreciate the difficulties, but there it is, and I venture to suggest that if any military officer had been responsible during the war—even in the great strain of that period—for loading troops in the manner in which civilians are now loaded at Liverpool Street every night, there would have been a long string of bowler hats handed out.
I feel that something far different ought to have been done during the past three months. First, I would draw attention to the fact that at Liverpool Street there has been no real effort to advise or direct the poor, shambling passengers upon that station in the way they ought to go. Trains have been cancelled without any prior notification; passengers have assembled in one train and have then been

told calmly by loudspeaker to get out and take another train, and that all adds up to the sum total of irritation. I venture to say that operation at Liverpool Street has been so chaotic that one has been led to believe that it was on the verge of collapse on certain evenings during the past few months. I am quite confident that in spite of all the apparent difficulties of that section of the line, far more courtesy could have been shown to the travelling public than has been the case during this period. I would, therefore, like the Minister to direct the attention of the London and North Eastern Railway Company to the fact that passengers are, after all, entitled to consideration when they assemble upon a station expecting to travel. They are entitled to receive that consideration by way of loudspeaker and by way of blackboard announcement, and, as far as is humanly possible, as much prior notice as possible of train cancellations.
I am fully aware that the Minister will reply on the lines of the grave difficulties in the mechanical and operating sections of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, but I would like to say a word upon the labour troubles that have taken place. They have, after all, gone on since September. I speak as a trade unionist Member of Parliament, and I do not believe that in an industrial dispute of that character capital ought to be made out of the sufferings of thousands of the travelling public. Steps should have been taken by those concerned, whether maintenance departments or otherwise, to bring some alleviation of that very desperate situation in the company's shops at Stratford.
It will probably be argued by the Minister that this Eastern section of the railway is almost peculiar in the London and North Eastern Railway because it is run almost entirely with Westinghouse-fitted stock, whereas the vast majority of the other areas are served by vacuum-fitted stock. It will be said that owing to this it has not been possible to supplement locomotive and rolling stock on this particular section from other sections. That may be so, but I would like an assurance from the Minister tonight that this is actually the case, and that even within the slender resources of the London and North Eastern Railway Company there could not have been introduced some Westinghouse-fitted locomotives or


rolling stock. On the other hand, if this position, which has so rapidly deteriorated, was properly analysed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, would it not have been possible in the early months of December to have introduced vacuum-fitted locomotives and stock and drawn them from some other part of that railway? I am very reluctant to believe that even in these days some easement of the situation could not have been made from the resources of so great an organisation as the L.N.E.R.
There is one other point I should like to make. There have been public allegations of incompetence in management with regard to these operation difficulties and to the Stratford labour troubles. I do not propose to go into that because I do not think it would be a very useful thing to do, but nevertheless I feel that a considered reply ought to have been received from the London and North Eastern Railway Company some weeks ago in view of these public allegations. It is alleged with regard to Stratford that while it is true that the men have been acting in what is perhaps an unconstitutional manner, the real root of the trouble has been that the mangement has been incompetent. I will not carry that much further, but it has been mentioned in the Press and has been stated publicly, so that I feel that the allegations should be refuted and that the Minister should give us a statement on the actual position at Stratford. Although we welcome the news today that there is to be an easement there, I personally do not believe that it will materially affect the locomotive position for a few weeks or, indeed, months. The locomotive position has reached such a pitch that to put into operation 200 locomotives, wholly maintained, will be a long job.
I should like to refer to the question of time table compilation, although it would be very indiscreet to enter into the secrets of how time tables are compiled. In this connection I might say that the hon. Member for Hertford is in a more fortunate position than I have been in my area. On some days we have completely lost track of any actual relations between train running and time tables. I really think that there is room for improvement in the compdation of these time tables.
To use an example, we have the spectacle of trains running from Liverpool Street to Southend. They may go half way along the journey and then become non-stop afterwards. The last part of the journey is uneconomic running during this emergency since a train may then be only three-quarters full.
I suggest to the Minister that he should go very fully into the question of time tables with the L.N.E.R. in order to see if it is possible to eliminate that kind of thing. If a train reaches, say, Billericay, between Liverpool Street and Southend, it should not thereafter run straight through but should stop at the intermediate stations. I know that the automatic answer will concern operating time and turning round arrangements, but I feel that there is a review open to us there and I hope the Minister will go fully into the matter. This is an important matter, affecting the daily lives of scores of thousands of people, and it ought to be treated as one of the immediate emergency. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to see that everything possible is done to relieve this very ghastly position, which has arisen during the past three months.

8.29 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am reluctant to intervene in the Debate, because it does not affect my constituency, though I have no doubt that many Members here are affected by it. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), however, has raised in an able way an issue which concerns us all, the service provided for the travelling public. I have had some experience in this matter, because I lived for some years in a constituency in this area, and I have travelled on this Buntingford line. When I ventured to complain about the service, I was always told: "You cannot have it both ways. You cannot live in such beautiful unspoiled country and, at the same time, have express trains going through it." That was all very well, but there is a very considerable population living in that area. I have seen people trying to get trains at Liverpool Street station and I have never seen anything like what I witnessed there on one particular evening. I honestly believe that the lives of many people in this country have been considerably shortened by the effort of travelling which they have had to make during the last few years.
It is a positive disgrace to our civilisation, although it may be irremediable at the moment. The conditions which people— hundreds of thousands of people—have to put up with in travelling to and from Liverpool Street, going to and from their work, must impose serious physical hardship upon them, and deterioration of their health must ensue upon the hardships which they are undergoing.
On the occasion to which I refer there were at Liverpool Street many hundreds of people making desperate attempts to get into the trains. Compartments were already full, and people were standing inside the compartments, yet more people were pushing in, and there was the greatest confusion. When the train was actually in motion, a number of people were hanging on to the doors and trying to get into the compartments, with great risk of injury to themselves. That was not an isolated occasion. I have spoken to people who have travelled on these trains. I said to one man: "You are not looking Very well." He replied, "How can I look well when I take two hours to get to my work every morning and it takes me two hours every night to get home? I leave home about 8 o'clock and struggle for buses, and then I have to fight for my life to try to get a seat in the train."
A point mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Gunter) was very important. People contend that they get no guidance of any kind at Liverpool Street from any official, inspector or anybody else about when a train may be expected, or whether a train is to be or has been cancelled. I am sure there must be something wrong with the organisation. The railway servants of this country are among the most courteous of people who serve the public. I cannot understand why they are not in a position to give guidance to people who have been working in offices and have to travel to and from their work whether trains have been cancelled and when the next train is going. That information would give the people a chance to get home at a reasonable time. It is very surprising that this is the line which the Minister of Transport himself would use, travelling to Bishop's Stortford. I do not know whether the Minister goes by car, or whether all facilities are afforded to him so that he can enter the train quickly. If the Minister has to put up with a tithe

of the inconvenience endured by the travelling public, I can see no hope of his getting the Transport Bill through successfully because he will not be able to carry on with the process. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman can be putting up with the inconvenience that travellers are enduring on that particular line.
Is it really necessary now for a railway compartment to remain as dirty as the compartments are today on the London and North Eastern Railway? Is there-no process by which the carriages can be cleaned? I do not care whether I am passing any reflection on this company or any other company. I am simply stating the fact that if railway compartments are not cleaned from day to day in England at the present time, the travelling public at all events pay big fares and are entitled to cleanliness even if they cannot travel in reasonable comfort. I know the difficulties of the lack of railway stock, the need for repairs and so on, but I appeal to the Minister to go into the matter because it is a reflection on our present system not of government but of civilisation. The people of this country do not deserve it. They are entitled to something better and they ought to get it.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) for raising this extremely important matter. I should like to congratulate him on his good fortune in securing a Debate which gives all of us an opportunity to say one or two of the things we have been wanting to say for some months on this subject. Briefly, the situation is that nobody in Hertfordshire—we are dealing specifically with that county this evening—who relies on the London and North Eastern Railway can possibly make an appointment and be sure of keeping it. That is the plain straightforward truth of the matter. The difficulties are not confined merely to the business times. In fact there is ground for thinking that some of the trains in which the prosperous business men travel run a little faster than some of the others.
The line from Liverpool Street to Buntingford, to which the hon. Member


for Hertford has referred, threads its way through the hon. Member's constituency, and just before it reaches its destination, it passes out of his constituency into mine. I can bear out everything he has said about the shortcomings of that line. But all this is not confined to the Liverpool Street services. It applies equally —perhaps with not quite such great force but almost equally—to the line out of King's Cross which runs North to Hatfield, to Welwyn Garden City, on to the place which is now becoming known as Silkingrad, and to Hitchin and further North. Many men and women constituents of mine—I know this because I have to travel on the line very frequently myself—work in Welwyn Garden City and rely on the trains coming out of King's Cross not only to take them home, but to take them to a place where they can get bus connections.
That is where a difficulty arises. Where a train runs 10 to 15 minutes late, it means that a passenger living in a place with buses only every hour has to waste a further three-quarters of an hour when the train arrives. Like the hon. Member for Hertford, I could quote strings of examples which have been laboriously collected by constituents of mine who have to travel on this line every day, but I will give only three examples. Last week I came up to town and returned on the 5.34 from King's Cross. That journey of about 20 miles took one a quarter hours. On Monday evening of this week, I came up to town and had to go back to a meeting at Hatfield. I caught the 6.40 from King's Cross. It was not foggy, but it took an hour to do the 18 miles to Hatfield. Yesterday, when, admittedly, there was fog in some parts of the country, I had a meeting at Hitchin in the afternoon and then I came up to town. I went smartly on to the platform at Hitchin to catch the 6.40 back to London. The train was standing at the station, so I quickened my pace, went over to the platform—and found it was the 5.13. That is not exceptional; it is happening every day, and part of it is due to a too ambitious timing of long-distance trains.
I appreciate that if you slow up a longdistance train to make way for a local train, that has repercussions right up the line. However, knowing as we do the limitations existing at present—the poor quality of locomotives, the poor quality

coal in many cases, the lack of maintenance on the track—surely it would be realistic to add something to the long distance train timings, giving them a margin so that my unfortunate constituents who have to travel a short distance from one station on the line to another station, are not always being held up by long distance trains? The King's Cross line has two bottle necks between London and Hitchin: the Welwyn Viaduct and the Potters Bar tunnels. Surely it would be realistic to add, say, half an hour to the timing of an express from King's Cross to Edinburgh so that it has time to spare if its coal is bad or if its locomotive has not been properly maintained, rather than this continual hold-up of 20 minutes, half an hour and, in some cases, three quarters of an hour of people who have to travel every day on this line? If it is not possible to keep to the time tables, then I ask the Minister to take the other alternative, which is not a very attractive one but at the same time is more realistic, of giving the trains a bit more time in order to do their job within the present limitations.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I ask the Minister when dealing with this matter, to pay some attention to the appalling service to Southend, which has already been mentioned tonight. I could give him many details of the deplorable conditions of unpunctuality and discomfort constantly endured by my constituents, but as they are very similar to those mentioned by previous speakers, I will not reiterate them. The fact remains that many thousands of people coming up from my constituency every day are putting up with almost intolerable conditions.
I had a letter today from a constituent, personally known to me, saying that he works in the City, within easy walking distance of Liverpool Street, about five or six minutes from the station, and not once since Christmas has his journey from his office to his home at Southend taken less than three hours—a distance of 41 miles by train—with the result, already mentioned that when he gets back and the train is 45 minutes late, he has missed his bus which involves another half hour. So he gets home at nine o'clock, after leaving his office at half past five. That is a really intolerable strain for a man over 60, who has put up with great inconveniences during the war. But that is only one in-


stance. Another gentleman wrote to me and said that he counted the number of people in his compartment one night last week, and there were 26, including himself. The compartment was badly lit, and the passengers were treated like cattle People could put up with this sort of thing during the war, but it seems a little too much now that conditions are easier. At Liverpool Street it is like a free fight. In fact it is dangerous, for people who have had a long tiring day doing secretarial work in the City. I hope the Minister can do something to alleviate somewhat the grave disomfort and inconvenience that are causing a breakdown in health to many thousands of people in my constituency.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: Many hon. Members have referred to the difficulties between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford, and have given a clear indication of the discomfort, waste of time, and loss of man-hours which result. But those difficulties have their repercussions far beyond Bishop's Stortford, and particularly concern my constituency of Cambridge Living in Cambridge, are many people who went there during the war under evacuation and other schemes, who have been unable to return to London because of the housing shortage. A large number of them have to come up to London every day. What they need is a train leaving Cambridge at a reasonable time to get to London by about 9 o'clock in the morning, and a train leaving London by 6 o'clock to get them back to Cambridge at a reasonable time in the evening. What actually happens is that there is a train at 7.47 a.m., due at Liverpool Street at 9.44, but which rarely arrives before 10 a.m. The 5.49 p.m. back is due at Cambridge at 7.25 p.m., but I understand it has never yet run to time since the winter schedules were introduced last October. It is frequently 8 o'clock, and later, before that train reaches Cambridge.
The effect of all that is that if a man must be in his office by about 9 o'clock, and do an ordinary day's work, he has to leave Cambridge—which is only about 50 miles away—at 6 o'clock in the morning, with no hope of getting home again until between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening. We all know the difficulties of rolling

stock, and fuel, and so on, but, as Cambridge people see it, those are not really. the answers. If it were purely a matter of rolling stock, time would be lost all the way on the journey, but I understand that the part of the journey from Bishop's Stortford via Audley End to Cambridge is quite regularly done almost on time, the hold-up comes between Bishop's Stortford and Liverpool Street. Those of my constituents who have kept a time table on these matters, say that it is only too obvious that if the schedules were revised between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford, the same pace could be kept up as between Bishop's Stortford and Cambridge. I am told that the drivers themselves say, "Give us the road, and we can do the journey on time."
The trouble about the schedules between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford is that the L.N.E.R. seem invariably to try to run a fast train fairly closely behind a slow train, rather than doing the opposite. For instance, the early evening trains from Liverpool Street are held up in this way. The 4.32 p.m. train follows behind the slow 3.42 p.m., the 5.49 p.m., the train which is always late, folldws behind the slow 5.24 p.m. train; the 7.15 p.m. train follows behind the slow 6.30 p.m. It is this practice of timing schedules so that they involve a fast train following a slow one, which inevitably results in the slow trains holding up the fast ones. From time to time, my constituents have put forward suggested revised schedules, and it seems to me that the railway company are ready to seek out any and every reason for rejecting them, but never consider trying them out in practice. The suggestion that some of them might involve the use of more rolling stock has been dealt with. I have, in recent weeks, put before the Minister schedules which would in fact, involve the use of definitely not more, and in some cases less, rolling stock than is used at present, but it seems that for some reason or other the company are not prepared to revise their schedules, even for an experimental period. I suggest to the Minister that he should take up that point with the company. Man hours are wasted all the way down the line, and by revising the timings from Liverpool Street, I am sure it would be possible to get as good a service between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford, as is


apparently possible between Bishop's Stortford and Cambridge.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Gage: My reasons for intervening in this Debate are two. First, I am one of the unfortunates who live on this line. I live a few stations beyond Bishop's Stortford, and I have to travel on it constantly. Secondly, I come from a country where railways are rather unpunctual, and I think I may speak as an authority on this. In Ireland, which is my country, though the railways are erratic and timings are bad, they are at least amusing. No one can say that of the London and North Eastern Railway Company—it is merely sordid. Whereas on the Clogher Valley Railway, in the part of the world from which I come, passengers, when they start an hour late, at least have the exhilaration of hearing the station master saying to the driver, "You can't go tonight, the 'Ballygawley Special' is on the line," and the driver answering, "Is she? Then she'll meet her match to night." That never happens at Liverpool Street. All that happens is that the train is an hour late starting, and very much later in arriving at her desti-nation.
Having observed this railway for a considerable period of time, I think there are two main faults any passenger can find with it. In the first place, the coaches in which they travel—"coaches"are, of course, a courtesy term, they are so called by the railway—are dirty, uncomfortable, and, I suppose, were manufactured when railways first started to run. They are normally unheated, save, I believe, when the weather becomes mild or warm. Certainly on cold days they are never heated. As the trains are delayed and stop for lengthy periods between stations, that is a matter of great discomfort to passengers in them.
Secondly, the trains practically never run to time. That might sound an exaggeration, but out of interest I kept a schedule of my last ten journeys on this railway On those ten journeys never once did my train get to its destination at the time which was advertised in the timetable. I agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) that the real fault is in the timing. Some hon. Members and friends of mine who travel

on this railway tell me, and produce facts, to substantiate their story, that in the old days of stage coaches one could do the journey from London to Bishop's Stortford in roughly the same time or perhaps a little longer. If the railway is to be run like that it should be so timed in the timetable. There is nothing more annoying to a passenger who travels regularly by the same train than to get to know that it arrives regularly 10 or 15 minutes late. The 8.29 from Newport is a case in point. It is scheduled to arrive at Liverpool Street at 9.50 a.m. and day after day it fails to arrive before ten o'clock. It is a maddening thing for those who have to travel. If the train was retimed so that we knew where we were, and that we would not arrive at 9.50, at least that would be some consolation.
I suggest that the timing of these trains should be examined. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin when he suggested that they should be retimed. The excuses that are given for the present conditions on the L.N.E.R. are nearly all connected with the war. The traffic manager and other important officials tell one of the devastating effect which war has had upon the railway. So far as the old traveller is concerned, that simply does not wash. People who travelled on this railway before the war know that conditions were precisely the same then. They have never been good. My recollection goes back to 1925 when as a young man I had to travel up from Cambridge for dinner in London. I found that the train which was advertised to arrive at 6.45 at Liverpool Street arrived at 7.20 and I went with a certain amount of indignation to the officials in the station. They looked at me with surprise and said, "Oh, but don't you know? It has never got in before 7.15 yet." They were astonished that I should find anything unusual about it. Of course, having made the mistake once, I got to know that that was the case. That was another case for retiming. I hope it will not be said that the dreadful state of this railway is due to anything connected with the war", because I do, not believe it. It has always been like this and, unless something drastic is done, I am sure it will remain in this condition.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: If we wished to widen the scope of this Debate


and to discuss the question of private enterprise and State ownership, we certainly could have a most interesting discussion and wc could make use of the speech by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) in our argument. I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that that is not our intention. Certainly it was not my intention when I ventured to interrupt him during the early part of his speech. I wish to cross swords with the Parliamentary Secretary and also with the Minister, who is not here. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to the arguments which have been presented, to be frank, factual and realistic in regard to the problems which have caused this difficult situation. It is the question of railway engines, rolling stock and all those kindred matters that, somehow, as the hon. Member who has just spoken said, cause us to recognise that the railway companies never seriously believe their own timetables at all.
I remember suggesting to the Minister last year that, on the L.N.E.R. from King's Cross, they should speed up the existing trains and provide more trains according to their timetable, but they forgot to put any more trains on or to speed up the trains that were running. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to come down to the realities of the situation. I am sure that hon. Members of this House promote Debates of this kind with the idea of getting something done. We do not just quote figures and give examples or experiences merely for the sake of wasting Parliamentary time. I have never yet myself heard from the Ministry of Transport anything but excuses, explanations, or something else which has come from some railway official, teling us of the situation relating to 1040, 1941 or 1942 in the war years. I have never heard anything dealing with the weeks or months that lie ahead.
I would put two specific points, apart from the argument which, we hope, has just been settled at Stratford. Does the Minister hold out any positive hope whatever for the travelling public—not those from Liverpool Street alone, but also those from King's Cross—that there will be sufficient engines, in the first instance, and I mean good and efficient engines, to take the trains in the next few months according to the schedules laid down, so

that people can do their jobs in the manner in which ordinary citizens wish to do them, that is, on time? Are we bringing engines, less likely to be used there, from other parts of the country to augment the inefficient ones or those laid up in the sidings or engine sheds? Are we likely to have engines to take the place of these inefficient or useless ones which are causing us so much trouble at the present time? Will the Minister give us some definite indication that there will be some kind of economy? Will the Minister see that the public are not given false information in railway guides which show that there are seven trains when there really are only five, or perhaps four and where there is no intention of carrying out the railway timetable? Will he see that we are protected against this kind of thing?
Furthermore, on the question of economy, may I beg him to consider a direction in which economy can be effected, and that is in regard to some long-distance trains? For pure swank, we run the "Yorkshire Pullman," which carries 292 people, but the ordinary citizens are not so fortunate as to get a seat on that train without booking, say, six weeks ahead They travel in trains with probably 650 or 700 other people with them, but the "Yorkshire Pullman" leaves on time, and people with braid on their hats—I am not sure whether some of them have not got top hats—who are railway officials are there to see it off every day. We like the "Yorkshire Pullman," and the "West Riding Limited." We like these Rolls-Royce trains, but we also fully recognise that we cannot afford them at present. When this train arrives at Doncaster, or somewhere else—Harrogate, Hull or Leeds— it has to have three engines to pull six coaches. In fact, I believe it has one engine for two coaches and has to have another extra engine for each additional two coaches.
It is a very serious state of affairs, and I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to be as dissatisfied with his Department as he was with many aspects of the Coalition Government when we were brothers in arms challenging them in this House. I can assure him that many of us are very discontented and dissatisfied with the explanations, or lack of good intentions, on the part of his Ministry to deal with the problems raised in this House by hon.
Members who are trying to do some good for the wellbeing of their constituents and the wellbeing of the country. Therefore, I would insist that he tells us what are his intentions for the next few months, so that there may be some improvement along the lines indicated in this Chamber this evening.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I have been very interested in what has been said this evening in regard to the proper working of passenger traffic between Liverpool Street and suburban London stations. If the Minister was in a position to reply effectively tonight, I think he would indicate that the solution to many of these problems lies in another direction, one which has already come before this House and will come before it again at a later stage.
With the exception of Waterloo, all the main line railway terminal stations were designed in the Victorian age for traffic requirements of that age. The problem of our London terminal stations today is that of trying to press a quart into a pint pot, if I may use that illustration. I believe that Liverpool Street is the worst of the London terminal stations in this respect. Its service is bad. Delays occur at Liverpool Street and other London terminal stations because of the bottleneck conditions which exist at present. The London main line terminal stations were designed mainly for long-distance traffic. Suburban traffic has been quite a secondary consideration and, consequently, the railway companies now find themselves bottled up in an inadequate space and unable to cope with a suburban problem that was never anticipated in Victorian times, when these terminal stations were first designed and constructed.
I would remind the House that, during the period between the first and second world wars—between 1918 and today— more than two million people have come to live in the suburban area of London. That is a very significant fact because it has had the effect of adding to the pressure of travel into and out of London over a system never designed to cope with such suburban traffic. Therefore nothing but the complete reorganisation of our London terminal stations can overcome this difficulty of suburban travel. In my view,

what is urgently required is a separation of long-distance traffic from the purely suburban services, but it is very difficult to do that at the London terminal stations.
It is also very significant that we hear many complaints in this House about passenger train delays on the L.N.E.R., the L.M.S. and, to some extent, on the Great Western Railway, but very few about delays on the Southern Railway. What delays we do get on the Southern line occur mostly on the steam services. The Southern suburban service from Water l00 is really the best suburban service which the City possesses, largely because it is considerably electrified and, of course, the signalling system is much more effective. Therefore, if we are looking for a cause, we must look to the backwardness of the railway managements and the railway companies themselves. They have never faced the necessity for the complete reorganisation of their London terminal stations to cope with the suburban traffic which those stations were never designed or built to accommodate.
In my view, the solution is of a long-term nature. I do not think mere is any short solution to the problem. London is continuing to grow, and the more it grows and the more people who come to the Greater London and suburban area, the greater will this problem become. The real solution is the introduction of a system of electrification to our suburban services on the L.N.E.R. and the L.M.S and the Great Western Railways to the same extent and to the same degree as that which exists on the Southern suburban services. To a great extent, that will meet the complaints which have been experienced not merely over the last year or two but, as has already been said, even before 1939. Liverpool Street has always been known to be the worst station in London from which to travel. Too many people are going to Liverpool Street. The siting of the station is not adequate, and there is not sufficient space for expansion. Especially where there are steam train services a large number of shunting movements are involved, all of which tend to reduce speed and increase delays.
Let me give a simple illustration. When an electric train comes into Waterloo, the driver transfers from one end of the train to the other end, and the train is ready to go out again. With a steam train, before it can go out again another


locomotive has to come from another part of the station and be hooked on to the end of the train. In that case two locomotives are utilised for one train, which in turn multiplies the problem of the shortage of locomotives. It also involves a number of signalling and shunting movements which are absolutely necessary in the actual operation of the train itself. Therefore, electrification of the suburban services is the real solution to the problem.
There is another very important element, namely, the safety element in railway operations. I know it is very irritable to be delayed when one has to travel from Liverpool Street to an outlying area, but I think the railway companies, and indeed the railway men themselves, are right in regarding as their first consideration at all times the safety of the travelling public. That very often leads to certain delays. Therefore, when we ask the railway companies to get a move on, let us be sure that we are not pressing them to take unnecessary risks which may result in loss of life. Here I would like to show again how backward the railway companies have been in the adoption of a device which is not only very important from the safety aspect but which helps to maintain punctuality in bad weather. It does not matter what, arrangements there may be, if fog or snow descends, delay is bound to arise where steam train services are in operation. That cannot be avoided, because speed must necessarily be slowed down and as a rule a fog service is introduced Here again, with electrification fog does not have the deterring effect upon speed and movement that it does in the case of steam trains.
The Great Western Railway nave been the pioneers of a very important invention, which has been installed almost universally throughout their main line system. That invention is known as the automatic train control. On the Great Western Railway main line, even in thick fog when one cannot see a yard ahead, fast trains maintain their scheduled speed, even though the drivers cannot see the signals at all. The signals are connected with an electrical device in the line, which indicates to the driver as he passes in his train whether the signal is at danger or is at "all right" position; a bell rings in the cabin of the locomotive indicating that the signal is at "all right" and that he

can continue; if the signal is at danger, a whistle blows. The driver knows automatically, without being able to see the signal, whether the signal is at danger or at "all right." That not only gives confidence to the train men, but enables the trains to maintain their speed, because the drivers know whether the signals they pass are at danger or at "all right." On the other railway systems, the automatic train control is not in operation, and speed is bound to be reduced in bad visibility, because the driver has either himself to observe the signal as he travels along the rail, or else has to look out for what is called a fog man, who usually stands on the ground with a lamp or flag signalling the position of the signals. For many years the L.M.S., the L.N.E.R., and even the Southern Railway, have been urged to adopt this automatic train control system, because of its increased efficiency in bad visibility and its increased safety for travelling. However, for some reason or another they have not seen fit to adopt such a good proposal.
The solution of the problem must, in my view, necessarily be a long-term one. I am afraid this may be very disappointing for those who have to travel from our main line railway terminal stations. However, I think we shall get a great deal of alleviation when we are able to carry through the proposal of building new towns within the Greater London area. I understand the Minister of Town and Country Planning proposes to build six or eight new towns in the Greater London area—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member cannot discuss that subject, which is a matter involving legislation.

Mr. Sparks: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only wanted to refer to it in so far as the object of the Minister's responsibility is to withdraw population from the congested area of London to the new towns, thus relieving the problem of suburban travel. That, coupled with a sound system of electrification, and the operational separation of long-distance traffic from suburban traffic, concentrating upon both aspects of traffic in London rather than having to deal with them as one unit, will, in my view, contribute considerably to a solution of this problem.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will not mind if I do not follow him in trying to solve the problem that is before the House tonight of trying to get the trains to run on time from Liverpool Street to Bishop's Stort-ford and to the stations beyond. I rise merely to add a few words to what has been said of the need for improvement. I speak as one and on behalf of those who have to use the service Northward from Liverpool Street. It is true that the trains down from Liverpool Street in the afternoons and evenings rarely, if ever, run on time to any of the West Norfolk towns. It is equally true that, coming up in the mornings, as they approach the London area, they slow down and get behind schedule.
But I was a little bit concerned about the suggestion that has been made by some of the hon. Members in this Debate that the scheduled times for some of the longer-distance trains should be slowed up so as to allow other trains more time. The complaint that has always come from West Norfolk is that they are allowed too much time, that the schedules are not speeded up enough. If anything can be done that will enable the trains to get through to Liverpool Street Station on time from, at any rate, beyond Cambridge it would be a great convenience to the people who, from time to time, need to come up to London. Therefore, as a member representing an area beyond Cambridge, whose constituents have to use this line, I do add my word in asking the Minister to give immediate consideration to the problem, and to get the London and North Eastern Railway Company to serve the interests of the public over a wide area far better than they have done.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Medlicott: I should like for a brief moment to add my plea to the Minister to do all he possibly can to meet this quite serious problem of the delays on the London and North Eastern Railway. If I may, I should like to disagree with my colleague from South Western Norfolk in regard to the schedules, because what we find is that it is so difficult to make any kind of appointment, either for meetings or otherwise,

because it is never certain how much time will be occupied on the journey. If, by reason of the needs of re-organisation, or other temporary difficulties, it is a fact that these trains cannot make the journey in the present scheduled time, it would be far better if that fact were faced, and we were able to rely on getting to our destination in the time advertised, because, apart from other things, our railways are not at all well equipped with means of communication, and it is extremely unfortunate, when one is due to be at an engagement, to find oneself marooned in a train perhaps, for an hour, and with no means of letting the cause of the delay to be known.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what active steps are being taken to maintain more punctual times. One has the feeling that, to a large extent, those who are responsible for running the trains have almost give up in despair, and one wonders whether the drill for maintaining punctuality is being followed quite as energetically as possible. I do not want to make any direct comparison between railway administration and military traffic, but I think I can say that traffic in the Army, especially during the war, was kept moving at a wonderfully high level, of efficiency; and it was done, not only because the system was basically sound, but because those who were responsible were continually alive to the necessity of watching every second and of getting everything kept on the move.
So often one finds on a long journey that the train stops at stations where small but rather irritating delays occur. Luggage which has to be put on board is found assembled at the very opposite end of the platform from where the luggage van comes in, and all that kind of thing. Thus are built up delays which become quite considerable in the aggregate. While one may not be able in this short time to make any very concrete suggestions—it would perhaps be out of place for the layman to try to do so—I do want to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that the East Anglian services, especially the Norwich and beyond, are extremely unpunctual and in need of the most earnest attention he can give to them.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I have listened with great interest to this Debate,


for two reasons. One is that as a Member for the City of London I know very well the difficulties which a large number of my constituents have on account of the delays and the difficult conditions of travelling on this particular line. The second is that I am a director of the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I, therefore, thought it only right that I should rise at this moment and say one or two things which I thought might be of interest to the House. I was not aware that there was to be an extended Debate on this subject; I had expected that there would be a short Adjournment Debate of half an hour, and did not think I should have the opportunity of intervening, but since the opportunity has arisen, I think it is only courteous to the House, and a duty which I ought to perform, that I should intervene. I should also like to take the opportunity of meeting the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) as to proposals for improving the situation, which is, admittedly, very unsatisfactory at present.
I think that hon. Members who are interested in this particular section of the line are aware of the immense difficulties, which have been increased during the last few months, by the "go-slow" movement in the Stratford locomotive works. I do not know what the figures are today, but the last figures I heard were that just half of the locomotives serviced at Stratford are at present under repair. There are something like 500 engines in that area, of which over 250 are awaiting repair. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that to try to run a section of a railway with only 250 engines, when there ought to be 500, makes the working very difficult indeed. I think if is very regrettable that this matter has not been settled before though I do not want to take this opportunity of going into the whole problem as I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do so, but there is no doubt that the recent situation is due to the extraordinarily unfortunate difficulties which have arisen at Stratford. I sometimes think it is a miracle that this section of the line has managed to maintain any service at all in view of the fact that half the locomotives in the area are, for whatever reason, out of action.
The second point I would like to make is this. Throughout the whole British railway system there is at the moment a general shortage of locomotives, and I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this Debate, the urgent necessity of increasing the number of locomotives available to the railways. If hon. Members will look at the digest of statistics with which the Government are good enough to provide us, they will see in one of the columns a figure showing the number of locomotives exported in every month of this year. When they see the very large quantity of locomotives which have been exported, they will realise how bitter it is to all those concerned in the management of the railways to know that locomotives so badly needed in this country are, for good reasons or bad, having to be sent overseas. I only hope that payment is being received for these locomotives, and that they go to countries of whose currencies we are short, otherwise nothing can justify the export at all. I do seriously suggest that the Government must reconsider this matter, and even at the loss of some dollars or other foreign currency through the loss of export trade, they must see that we get a greater supply of locomotives for the British railways.
The next point I wish to make is in connection with coal. I am sure that all those who are in any way connected with the railways know the immense difficulties we have been having owing to the inferior quality of the coal at present being supplied. This is a general complaint not only in every industry, but by the domestic consumer as well. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will be very sympathetic, but we want more than sympathy. Greater care and attention must be given to the way in which coal is allocated to one industry and another. Not only is the wrong quality being supplied to the railways in many cases, but when the coal is supplied it is extremely dirty and full of ash and stones, and that is the same experience of electricity supply companies. I know that it is due to a number of causes which do not come within the control of the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply to this Debate, but I would urge him to press on the Minister of Fuel and Power the importance of this particular matter.
I do not think I need stress to the House the shortage of rolling stock. In this section of the line the position is obviously bad. It is partly due to the fact that this section was to be electrified just before the war. The whole of that work has been held up, and the rolling stock which would have been scrapped altogether and replaced by beautiful electric cars, is therefore still unfortunately in use. The permanent way is less good than it was, and that is due to the war, and no one is to blame for that, but it has resulted in a great deal of slow running being necessary, both on account of safety and on account of the increased necessity to make repairs to the permanent way. I need not assure hon. Members that the company is doing all it can to overcome these difficulties. The hon. Member for Doneaster asked what is being done to improve the situation. The situation will be improved by the settlement of the difficulties at Stratford, and by a sincere effort on behalf of all those engaged in Stratford to put their backs into the job and make up for lost time. The second important factor is that we should have more locomotives, and that the export trade should, if necessary, be reduced in order that the home market can be supplied; we cannot get on with the rest of our export business if the whole of our transport system is held up. The third point is that there should be a better quality of coal supplied, and that coal should be more carefully screened. The long-term policy of electrification is not one which can alleviate the immediate position, but that is the solution which we are working towards. All the constructive remarks that have been made by hon. Members who have intervened will be given the greatest possible attention, and will be of interest to those responsible for carrying on the difficult task of managing the London and North-Eastern Railway Company.

9.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): We have been lucky in having had such a long time on the Adjournment to discuss the troubles of the railway users in the East of London. There is no doubt that there are widespread and justifiable

complaints about the conditions under which these people have to travel. I think it is all to the good that these grievances should be expressed in the House by Members representing the areas concerned, that their suggestions for improvements should be made on the floor of the House, and that the victims of the present bad conditions should get an authoritative statement on the present position, and the prospects of improvement. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who has just spoken as a director of the London and' North Eastern Railway, for putting forward his views as a director of that company and I do not dissent from anything he has said.
I agree absolutely with the views expressed in all parts of the House that the conditions on the railways we have been discussing, particularly the suburban lines from Liverpool Street, are wretched and are a source of acute discomfort and hardship for those who have to travel on them. Everything combines to make their journey to and from work particularly unpleasant at the moment. There is apalling overcrowding. I watched people going into trains the other night at the rush hour, and I found it usual, not the exception, for eight people to have to stand in each carriage. The carriages 'themselves are old and uncomfortable. Much of the rolling stock is 40 years old and, for reasons which I will explain in a moment, it is at present particularly difficult to keep it in a state of cleanliness and good repair. On top of that, very many trains are cancelled, some at the last moment, thus causing confusion and uncertainty. Moreover, nearly all the trains that do run arrive at their destinations late, although I think that it is an exception for trains to arrive quite as late as some of those which have been quoted by hon. Members tonight.
Before I explain the difficulties which confront the railway company, I would like to express my unbounded admiration, having seen conditions at Liverpool Street, for the patience of the travelling public in putting up with the present state of affairs, and the orderly way they behave when trains arrive and great crowds want to get into the compartments. They act with admirable restraint, worthy of the highest praise. I would also like to express my admiration for the way in which the railway staffs are operating the


Liverpool Street suburban lines in the present extraordinarily difficult conditions. I do not suppose it is realised that at Liverpool Street there are six lines, three in-going and three out-going. During the rush hours, between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m., 60 trains come into Liverpool Street, discharging 35,000 people. In the conditions of chaos and uncertainty during the last few weeks in particular, it has been a remarkable achievement of the railway staffs to operate the trains so successfully.
I propose to indicate what, in our opinion, are the main causes of the present difficulties, and then to suggest what the prospects seem to be. First, I think this should be appreciated: Liverpool Street has the most densely operated service of steam trains of any railway station in the world. It carries nearly twice as many passengers as any other London terminus. Before the war, the operation of the trains, in and out of Liverpool Street, was pretty well at capacity. The additional difficulties imposed by wartime factors, and the Stratford dispute, have made the subsequent dislocation particularly severe. The fundamental trouble at Liverpool Street is that the electrification of certain lines, which was to have taken place in 1940 and subsequent years, did not take place. That is the root cause of the present delay difficulties and inconveniences, apart of course from the temporary factor of the Stratford stoppage.
I do not want to be politically controversial, but I think that it is lair to make this point. It would be true to say that the electrification of the London and North-Eastern suburban lines, or some of those lines, would have taken place some years before the war, if that railway company had been in a strong enough financial position to raise the capital. They were unable to do so, and those lines were not electrified. If they had been, the present situation would not exist. Plans were, however, made to electrify some of the lines in 1940 and subsequent years, but they could not be carried out because of the war so the company was forced to carry on with old engines and old rolling stock. They should have had many hundreds of first-class new carriages and new engines by now, and with an electrified system, it would have been possible to run many more trains, and the present congestion and delays would be avoided. As it is,

the engines running on these lines are exceptionally old, the average age being 27½ years, and there are constant breakdowns in operation. Moreover, as an hon. Member has pointed out, it is a fact that the engines working on these lines have to rely on the Westinghouse braking system, and cannot be replaced by the other engines, which are normally worked on other parts of the railway system, and which have vacuum brakes. Therefore, there is strict limitation on the number of outside engines which can be brought in to work these suburban services.
The situation has been made much worse by the dispute at the Stratford railway depots. The number of engines which are normally awaiting repair in those depots is in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent. Recently, the number rose to 50 per cent. The total stock of engines available is 428. The minimum required to run these services properly is 348, but the number actually available yesterday was only 185. This meant, of course, a large cancellation of trains. For example, yesterday, between 5 and 6 o'clock, one-third of the trains had to be cancelled, and during the peak hours there has recently been a loss of 30,000 seats. This shortage of locomotive stock has effects on every aspect of railway working. It is largely due to this that the carriages are so dirty. In order to keep the carriages in good repair and clean —they are so old that it is difficult to do it in the best circumstances—it is necessary to bring them into the depot every two or three days. When there are not the engines, the carriages cannot be brought in for cleaning and repairing.
There is one other factor which must be borne in mind when the difficulties of the L.N.E.R. at Liverpool Street are being considered. It is a difficulty which affects all forms of transport. The result of the shorter working week is a far greater concentration of travelling into a shorter period Far more people are now travelling between 5 o'clock and 0.30 than before the war. People are not keeping such late hours in their offices. I asked to see some figures about this, and found that there are 4,300 more people travelling from Liverpool Street between 4.30 and 6 o'clock now than in 1938. These are the main factors which have caused the difficulties at Liverpool Street, and about which complaints have


been pouring in to Members of Parliament for the area, and through them to us.
There are two criticisms that have been made in tonight's Debate, about which I should like to say a special word. One is that the railway company is cancelling many trains at the last moment without giving any warning to the passengers who may be wanting to travel in them. The reason is this. There are always under present conditions, a number of trains whose capacity to start is doubtful. In view of the shortage of trains the railway company does not want to cancel any train unless they are absolutely certain that it cannot run. So if there is a doubtful starter, they keep it in the schedule knowing that sometimes, at the last moment, they may have to cancel it.
Another complaint that has been made is that there is no adequate arrangement in the station for telling intending passengers what alterations there have been or are to be, or giving passengers directions as to which platform they should go to and which trains are running. The railway management have been well aware of that difficulty. The existing loudspeaker system was found to be inadequate, and there has now been installed—and I think there may be further improvements—a far better loudspeaker system which, as far as I could judge on hearing it the other day seemed to give effective notice to the public of the current situation.
The really important point is what are the prospects for improvement. I think it is right that the people who use these suburban services should know what are the causes of their discomforts and hardships, but I think they are even more anxious, to know what are the chances of their being able to travel in comfort in the future. The cessation of the dispute at the Stratford depot will, of course, effect considerable improvements but not immediately. I cannot say how long but some weeks and maybe a couple of months or more must pass before the full effect of the Stratford go slow movement can be overcome and the arrears of maintenance made up. I gather the men are working there tonight full out in order to do their utmost in that direction and the improvement will now be steady, but it would be unwise to think that the

arrears can be fully overcome within a week or two.
The only complete solution of this problem lies in the electrification of some if not all of the lines. When that happens we will get new locomotives, new rolling stock, and many more trains running. The present plans are these. There will be the-electrification of the Loughton line, which is the Central Line, as far as Woodford this year. Then will come the electrification of the Shenfield line. The plan is to put this into operation as soon as possible, but it cannot be completed I am informed, before two years at the earliest. When that takes place the number of trains able to operate on that line will be nearly double the present number. Apart from that, the only other alleviation can come from an increase in the number of engines which can be made available for these lines. I have briefly explained the technical difficulty which arises from the use on these lines of the Westinghouse braking system but the company are in fact supplying a limited number of extra locomotives, and they plan to supply such extra ones as may become available.
In view of the locomotive situation throughout the country, there is, I understand, not much chance of any large number of additional engines being drawn in from elsewhere to relieve the services here. The company have on order 100 new engines, many of which, I understand, will be used on these lines, but it will "be some time before they become available. In fact, they are not yet being built. At the same time, I think the House is aware that the Government are doing their utmost to get the repairs effected to engines, and they are making arrangements to have some which were used abroad during the war repaired on the Continent so as to relieve the difficulties in our repair shops over here. We are fully aware of this situation and we are doing all that is possible to get not only new engines built but old engines repaired. We are fully aware that this is probably the worst passenger service in any part of the country and anything that can be done will be done to relieve the situation here.
In regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that we should stop exporting engines, that is not quite so easy. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the


various commitments which we have for the export of engines, but I can assure him that we in the Ministry of Transport are in the closest touch with the Board of Trade over these problems, as we are most anxious to see that not one engine is unnecessarily exported that we could usefully use in this country.
That is the situation. The prospects of some immediate improvement are bright as a result of the cessation of the Stratford dispute; but prospects of any immediate substantial improvement apart from that are not very good, because only the long-term solution of the electrification of some of the lines can be effective. There may be some alleviation by the provision of a small number of new engines, but we cannot promise travellers on these lines that in a period of three months, six months, or even a year conditions of travel will be as comfortable as they are, say, on the Southern Railway. The physical conditions existing here unfortunately make it absolutely impossible, but I can assure the House and all hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate that we, as a Department, will do whatever can be done to relieve the situation and minimise the hardship which these people are today suffering. At the same time, it is no use being too optimistic, in this matter. We have to be realistic and look the facts in the face.

Mr. Assheton: Would the Minister say a word about coal?

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I should say a word about coal, but of course that is a factor affect-

ing all railway companies and not the Liverpool Street situation particularly. I have concentrated on those factors which make the Liverpool Street service particularly difficult. I have given a broad picture of the present situation. I am grateful to the House and to hon. Members for giving me an opportunity to make it, and I can assure them that any suggestion that they make to me about changing the schedules of the trains —and such suggestions have been made during the Debate—will be considered by us and the railway company. This is however, a technical problem upon which I would not venture to give advice. I will welcome the cooperation of all hon. Members whose constituents are affected in trying to find, if not a solution, at least some alleviation of this problem. I hope that the travelling public who study the statement I have made may be better able to appreciate what the difficulties are. They are entitled to know them and they can rest assured that while there is little chance of any substantial or dramatic improvement during the next six months or year, apart from the substantial alleviation which will result from the ending of the Stratford dispute, the railway company I am sure, and certainly my Department, will do everything possible to see that their present unfortunate and uncomfortable conditions of travel are remedied.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Ten o'Clock.